This Generation and the Level of Jesus' cluelesness

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

This is in response to a post made by Terral in this thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44700&page=2&pp=16).

I started a new thread because the subject at hand is way off topic for the thread in question, and I wanted to respected the wishes of the thread starter and keep that thread on topic.






My thorough investigation of this topic on the Internet led me to realize that the Preterist Interpretation leans heavily upon the way specific terms are defined in Matthew 24. Specifically they concentrate upon importance the term ‘generation’ (Matt. 24:34) and phrase ‘fig tree’ (Matt. 24:32). <snip>I am proving my hypothesis by asking the question of how the typical Preterist interprets perhaps one of the most important and vital verses that proves their interpretation. After all, if Christ is truly speaking to ‘this generation’ (Matt. 24:34) of THAT DAY, then everything they are saying is truth. In that case I am ready, willing and able to jump onto the Preterist bandwagon and begin proving their points using Scripture. Since the typical Preterist on this Board believes Christ was indeed speaking to the generation of that day, <snip>



Terral starts out pretty good here. He shows that he has at least a good grasp of the preterist interpretation. In fact he says that if preterist are right in their interpretation that “this generation” in Matthew 24 is speaking of the first century, then preterist are right.


So since he admitted that if preterist are right about this generation, then we must be telling it true. He must also admit that if Jesus was talking about the generation then living, then He must have known the year and decade even if He did not know the day and the hour.

I would agree. But then he goes on to ask the question that he already provided the answer to above.


What makes the Preterist in you believe that Christ was really and truly speaking to ‘this generation’ of that day, when He specifically told you that He had no clue about the day or hour (Matt. 24:36)?


Because lack of knowledge of “day or hour” does not preclude knowledge of decade and year.



Because there are numerous clues that the event would be first century, not the least of which is Jesus saying that “this generation” will not pass until all these things are complete.



If ‘this generation” in Matthew 24:34 meant the generation then living, then Jesus must have had a clue.



So to ask the same question that Terral asked in the guise of “anti-terral” (See here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=852141&postcount=181) for reference to anti-terral) What makes the futurist in you believe that Christ was really and truly cluless of the year and the decade when He specifically told you that this generation would not pass away until all these things were completed? (Matt. 24:34)



You question is loaded, as is anti-Terral’s. It is also disengenous as Terral provides the answer below:



For Christ to know the true identity of that ‘generation,’ then He must know that all these signs (Matt. 24:3-31) would be seen by those living in that day. That is the supposition one must make in order to fit the definition of a Preterist given on this Board.



That is the position of preterist, that Jesus did know that all these signs would be seen by those living in that day.



Next Terral ask the begged question/strawman:





All I am asking of the professing Preterists here is for them to give me the ‘Scriptural’ verse or verses that prove Christ really did know the ‘day and hour’ to prove that He was really and truly addressing the generation of that day.



No one ever said that Jesus knew the day and the hour. And I will, for the sake of argument, concede that He did not know the day and the hour. So this is not my position, therefore it is a strawman.



Is it not possible to know within a generation and still not know the day and hour. For example. I know that I am going to die within the next 100 years. I do not know the day or hour.



Then I can also use those same verses of Scripture to prove that case, when I also come to understand the reasons you believe that way. Are you beginning to see the reason for my asking this simple question?


The question may be simple, but it is also loaded. And you ask it again and again. I know because this is a least the second time I have answered this same question.

Instead of addressing my answers, you ask other non-related questions, or use other evasion techniques. This time, can you eitehr address my questions, or not participate. I don't have the time or desire to chase anymore of your rabbit trails.

And to make it easy for you I will start with on basic yes or no question:

1. Is it possible for someone to know the year of an event, but not know the day and the hour?

Heck. I'll even give you the answer. It is yes. It is possible for someone to know the year of an event an not know the day or the hour. So I guess the real question I have for you is this:

Why do you think that Jesus not know the day and the hour precludes Him from knowing the year (or even the month)?

Can you answer that simple question?



Bottom line is, the whole question is about the interpretation of ‘this generation’. Therefore, as thread starter I ask that all debate be limited to the interpretation of ‘this generation’.



What I do not want is questions about the battle of Armegedon, battles with blood bridle high, etc. Not that I can not answer these questions, in fact I have already answered these questions elsewhere. However, I have found that some futurist here tend to ask off topic question instead of addressing the topic at hand. I want this thread to have a very narrow topic.



Thanks in advance for keeping this thread on topic.



In Christ



:sig:

[Ted]

Faramir,

I haven’t seen you much lately. Welcome back. You raise two questions.
Why do you think that Jesus not know the day and the hour precludes Him from knowing the year (or even the month)?
The proper answer to this must come from scripture. I had been taught like many that this expression does preclude knowing the year. That conveniently precludes date-setting for the parousia. Unfortunately, scripture gives us exactly one passage to help us out. Fortunately, it is in the Olivet Discourse, the very passage with the problematic statement!
Matthew 24:45-51 45 "Who then is the faithful and sensible slave whom his master put in charge of his household to give them their food at the proper time? 46 "Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes. 47 "Truly I say to you, that he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 48 "But if that evil slave says in his heart, 'My master is not coming for a long time,' 49 and shall begin to beat his fellow slaves and eat and drink with drunkards; 50 the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour which he does not know, 51 and shall cut him in pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites; weeping shall be there and the gnashing of teeth. (This is the same statement found in Luke 12:42-26.)

The sense of this parable is one of indefiniteness. There is no way that the slave can know even approximately when the master is coming. If he were to know roughly when the master was about to return, he could straighten up shortly before that time. But he doesn’t even know with that degree of possibility. He is completely clueless. That is why the master will surprise him when he returns. Thus, I believe that the common teaching is correct.

Further, to argue that I can’t know the day or hour, but that I can know the year, is a sophistry that tries to circumvent the thrust of the Discourse. The parables that follow the “day or hour” passage all try to paint the same picture. “You don’t know when I am coming back. So stay ready.” Thus, the only way I can see to handle this is that applying a “generation” calendar to the parousia (Matt 24:3) is misguided. And that brings us to the second question (in more ways than one).

Bottom line is, the whole question is about the interpretation of ‘this generation’. Therefore, as thread starter I ask that all debate be limited to the interpretation of ‘this generation’.
If that were the proper subject, we would be done. In fact, while “this generation” is always contextually defined (I’m not arguing for “age” or any of those other ideas.) in this case, the context is defined as the destruction of Jerusalem.

Matt 24:3 has two, independent questions. DeeDee has tried to argue that this is irrelevant, but I must respectfully disagree. The first question is clearly about the destruction of the temple, and is delimited by “these things” (meta tauta) and the singular “end” (telos). 24:34 is within a discussion identified by those keys. In fact, “this generation” is explicitly linked with “these things” in the sentence. To try to sever them would require a miracle.

The second question is about the parousia, and is linked with the plural synteleia (24:3). That form of “end” is better translated “consummation,” and refers to the end of all threads of human existence, not simply the thread of Jewish woship in Jerusalem and the temple. The very form of the question clearly separates two issues. And Jesus answers both, in quite distinct ways.

Having said that, the “day or hour” statement is not within a “these things” discussion! It is within a discussion of the parousia, which is NOT at AD70. Jesus had been speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem in verses 4-26. That’s pretty clear. But notice the contrast in verses 26-27.
Matthew 24:26-27 26 "If therefore they say to you, 'Behold, He is in the wilderness,' do not go forth, or, 'Behold, He is in the inner rooms,' do not believe them. 27 "For just as the lightning comes from the east, and flashes even to the west, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be.
Jesus is saying that the false messiahs of the pre-AD70 era should be ignored because the parousia will be sudden and universal in scope and appearance. “For” in the beginning of verse 27 might better be translated “because.” He makes His point by contrast, and thus segues into a discussion of the parousia. He continues on in this mode, throwing verses 34-35 in as a parenthetical to reinforce two things - the absolute truth of his statement – and the nearness of the destruction of Jerusalem. The rest of the Discourse is devoted to the parousia, which is far more important than AD70. Of particular importance is the fact that in 36-42 the universal annihilation of the wicked at the parousia is declared. That didn’t happen in AD70.

I know this may seem somewhat away from the narrow approach you asked for, but I believe that your narrow approach forces us into a false dilemma by requiring that there be only one subject of the Discourse. Jesus was asked a compound question, and he answered both parts. One segment was local, and the other global. One was near, and the other far.

Ted

[Terral]

Faramir:
Terral Original >> What makes the Preterist in you believe that Christ was really and truly speaking to ‘this generation’ of that day, when He specifically told you that He had no clue about the day or hour (Matt. 24:36)?

Faramir >> Because lack of knowledge of “day or hour” does not preclude knowledge of decade and year. Because there are numerous clues that the event would be first century, not the least of which is Jesus saying that “this generation” will not pass until all these things are complete.
LoL. You have just proven that the Preterists here are injecting that interpretation into the definition of Christ’s term. Christ is saying that the generation to see ALL THESE SIGNS will not pass away, until ALL THESE THINGS are complete. Christ is answering the question from His Disciples about “Your coming” and the “end of the age.” Matt. 24:3. The then gave a laundry list of exactly ‘what’ would occur up to the END OF THE AGE. He then said,

“Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away. But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.”
He could not say that this generation to see all these signs was living in that day or any day, because He does not know the day or hour EVEN NOW. There is no way He could know the decade, year or century.
Faramir >> If ‘this generation” in Matthew 24:34 meant the generation then living, then Jesus must have had a clue.
The problem with your theory is that Christ had no clue about ‘when’ any of this would happen. Therefore, He could not possibly identify the ‘generation’ to be living at the ‘end of the age,’ according to the ‘day or hour.’ The only clues He could give was the ‘end of the age’ signs of those times. You are merely assuming that He is addressing the generation living in that day, then forcing all of OT and NT Prophecy to be fulfilled in 70 AD using a very heavy hammer to force the round and square pegs anywhere you desire. To do that you must turn a blind eye to most everything written about the ‘day of the Lord’ which is not even yet ‘at hand.’ 2Thes. 2:2. Our church in the world today is standing in anticipation of the same ‘gathering together to Him’ (2Thes. 2:1), as the Thessalonians of Paul’s day. We are to be ‘caught up’ (1Thes. 4:17) at the moment that the day of the Lord is ‘at hand.’ 2Thes. 2:2. The ‘times and epochs’ (1Thes. 5:1+2, Acts 1:7) relating to the day of the Lord (1Thes. 5:2) is when the kingdom is restored to Israel (Acts 1:6+7). You have events of the day of the Lord being fulfilled long before the day of the Lord is even at hand. Of course, you have no idea of the contradictions you have just created by interpreting Scripture in that way, but that is your problem and not mine.
Faramir >> What makes the futurist in you believe that Christ was really and truly clueless of the year and the decade when He specifically told you that this generation would not pass away until all these things were completed? (Matt. 24:34)
Christ did not know the day or the hour (Matt. 24:36), much less the decade or century. The problem with your poor illustration is that we are describing events that transpire during the ‘day of the Lord.’ Paul tells you why Christ had no clue about the day or the hour:

“Now as to the times and the epochs [ See Acts 1:6+7 ], brethren, you have no need of anything to be written to you. For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night.”
Paul did not have the need to write these Thessalonians about the actual events of the day of the Lord, because they would be gathered to Him (1Thes. 4:17) at the instant that the day of the Lord BEGAN. Why write about events that shall occur when these people are in heaven looking down on those things? We are members of the same ‘body of Christ’ (Eph. 4:12) mystery church (Eph. 5:32) that was on the earth in Paul’s day. That is why Paul’s Epistles still have direct application to us now, because we are also the members of the ‘dispensation of God’s grace’ (Eph. 3:2) still in the world anticipating the Rapture of 1Thes. 4:17. THAT FACT tells you that the ‘day of the Lord’ has still NOT STARTED. The Thessalonians were disturbed by rumors that they had missed the gathering of 1Thes. 4:17. That is the purpose of Paul’s second letter to them, where he says,

“Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ [ 1Thes. 4:16+17 ] and our gathering together to Him, that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.”
The original Greek here actually says “day of Christos” or the “day of Christ,” but Paul uses the phrases interchangeably to the same audience to describe the same gathering event (1Thes. 5:1+2, 2Thes. 2:1+2). The important thing to realize is that the events of the ‘day of the Lord’ cannot start, until that day actually COMES. In order for the Preterists to prove that the ‘day of the Lord’ prophecies are already fulfilled, they must also prove that we missed the ‘gathering’ of 1Thes. 4:17. The repercussions of such a misinterpretation alters most everything Paul teaches as ‘sound doctrine’ for the body of Christ in the world today. After all, if the day of the Lord has come, then the body of Christ church is already gone. That leaves the Christian believer today out on the end of a very long thin branch waiting for that cracking sound. However, since none of the day of the Lord prophecies have been fulfilled, then the Christian today has nothing at all to worry about. Christ is still interceding for us at the right hand of God (Rom. 8:34, 1Tim. 2:5), and the body of Christ (Eph. 4:12) is still growing to maturity (Eph. 4:13-15).
Terral Original >> All I am asking of the professing Preterists here is for them to give me the ‘Scriptural’ verse or verses that prove Christ really did know the ‘day and hour’ to prove that He was really and truly addressing the generation of that day.

Faramir >> No one ever said that Jesus knew the day and the hour. And I will, for the sake of argument, concede that He did not know the day and the hour. So this is not my position, therefore it is a strawman.
No sir. That is a qualifying question that seeks to identify the true believer of Preterism on this Board by establishing the Scriptural basis for his interpretation. Your answer above proved my hypothesis, which is why Dee Dee and others refuse to give a reply. A good question that draws out your debating opponent is just that. A straw man argument is one that I answer myself from which I draw my own conclusion, which must be based upon something other then the true essence of the topic. A Straw Man defense is more of a dishonest shell game maneuver where the third party reader is set up to believe my conclusion based on a false comparison I made during the argument. Unfortunately for your accusation, my question is based upon the actual definition of Preterism, and the actual Scriptural references of Matthew 24:34 and verse 36. Therefore, you are wishing that I fashioned a straw man, because the very loud sound of something hitting the ground was your argument. You do not see the reasoning behind my argument, because you are the one injecting a false meaning of ‘this generation’ (Matt. 24:34) into Christ’s mind. He is talking about those who see all those signs, and you Pretending He is talking about the generation living in that day.
Faramir >> Bottom line is, the whole question is about the interpretation of ‘this generation’. Therefore, as thread starter I ask that all debate be limited to the interpretation of ‘this generation’.
Another Preterist control freak . . . Since you also have started a thread bearing my name and bringing my testimony into question, then expect me to defend myself and my views anyway I see fit. If you wish to limit the discussion to one aspect of a subject, then mention THAT SUBJECT only in your OP.
Faramir >> What I do not want is questions about the battle of Armegedon, battles with blood bridle high, etc. Not that I can not answer these questions, in fact I have already answered these questions elsewhere. However, I have found that some futurist here tend to ask off topic question instead of addressing the topic at hand. I want this thread to have a very narrow topic.
Since you believe Matthew 24 is already fulfilled, then that takes us right up to the ‘end of the age.’ John is describing end of the age events throughout Revelation. So those also must be fulfilled in your view. I can understand your reasoning for not wanting to answer questions regarding all of the contradictions your interpretation creates throughout the Bible. That is why you guys want to limit your deception to one thing without regard to anything else. Perhaps you should have investigated more on how your theology corrupts everything else, before you adopted it. I cannot imagine that the typical Preterist has much of a knowledge pertaining to the long list of ‘day of the Lord’ prophecies and the retraining imperatives contained within them. For example: This means that “His Spirit” must be poured out on “All Mankind” (Acts 2:17) BEFORE the Judgment part (Acts 2:19-21) can even begin. This is connected to the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ going to the whole world (Matt. 24:14) before the ‘end will come.’ But then again, you probably have not stopped long enough to consider the differences between the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ (Matt. 24:14) and Paul’s ‘Christ and Him Crucified’ (1Cor. 2:2) gospel we preach today. Not to worry though . . . the secrets of men will be judged according to Paul’s “my gospel” (Rom. 2:16). That may not come up at the Judgment . . .
Faramir >> Thanks in advance for keeping this thread on topic.
Everything in your OP is fair game, partner. Thank you for making it so very long and about so very much.

In Christ,

Terral

[InChristAlways]

The original Greek here actually says “day of Christos” or the “day of Christ,” but Paul uses the phrases interchangeably to the same audience to describe the same gathering event (1Thes. 5:1+2, 2Thes. 2:1+2). The important thing to realize is that the events of the ‘day of the Lord’ cannot start, until that day actually COMES. Hi Terral, like these verses in revelation chapter 14 right? This is just before the "grapes of wrath" in the following verses, so I agree with you brother. God bless.


gathering of the sheep/wheat:

chapt 14:14 Then I looked, and behold, a white cloud, and on the cloud sat [One] like the Son of Man, having on His head a golden crown, and in His hand a sharp sickle. 15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to Him who sat on the cloud, "Thrust in Your sickle and reap, for the time has come for You to reap, for the harvest of the earth is ripe." 16 So He who sat on the cloud thrust in His sickle on the earth, and the earth was reaped.


Destruction of the goats/tares Why do I get the feeling it is the worshippers of the temple being the "grapes"? It sure seems to resemble Isaiah 5 and the parable of the Vineyard in the gospels in a lot of ways.


19 So the angel thrust his sickle into the earth and gathered the vine of the earth, and threw into the great winepress of the wrath of God. [i]20 And the winepress was trampled outside the city, and blood came out of the winepress, up to the horses' bridles, for one thousand six hundred furlongs.

Revelation 11:1 Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel stood, saying, "Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there.

[spiritmech]

I honestly don't know why you even try, Faramir. <shrug>

[Terral]

Spiritmech, InChrist:
InChrist >> Hi Terral, like these verses in revelation chapter 14 right? This is just before the "grapes of wrath" in the following verses, so I agree with you brother. God bless.
No sir. Our Rapture (1Thes. 4:17) occurs in the moments that precede Revelation 1:10. Note that Christ has His brand new ‘body’ in Rev. 1:12-18. Check us out, as we are awesome. : 0 ). The ‘body of Christ’ (Eph. 4:12) is already inside the Lamb for the remainder of Revelation. From the perspective of Israel, we have been there all along.
Spirit >> I honestly don't know why you even try, Faramir. <shrug>
Why would you criticize Faramir in such a way? Do you perceive that he is like the guy carrying a knife to a gun fight? In that case, perhaps we do agree on something. Please jump in at any time, Spirit, two knives are as good as one . . . :eek:

In Christ,

Terral

[InChristAlways]

No sir. Our Rapture (1Thes. 4:17) occurs in the moments that precede Revelation 1:10. Note that Christ has His brand new ‘body’ in Rev. 1:12-18. Check us out, as we are awesome. : 0 ). The ‘body of Christ’ (Eph. 4:12) is already inside the Lamb for the remainder of Revelation. From the perspective of Israel, we have been there all along. I believe you are wrong Terral, for obvious reasons as how can "we" be raptured before Christ is even born and taken up?!?!?! You are forcing something that is completely unscriptural!!! It appears to me the temple would be measured AFTER Christ is taken up(that "generation"), but I really don't know the sequence of events too well yet and I don't believe many others do either so I don't feel so bad, heh. God bless.

reve 12:5 She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne.

6 And I looked, and behold, in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as though it had been slain,

gathering of the sheep/wheat:(those sealed in Christ)

chapt 14:14 Then I looked, and behold, a white cloud, and on the cloud sat [One] like the Son of Man, having on His head a golden crown, and in His hand a sharp sickle. 15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to Him who sat on the cloud, "Thrust in Your sickle and reap, for the time has come for You to reap, for the harvest of the earth is ripe." 16 So He who sat on the cloud thrust in His sickle on the earth, and the earth was reaped.

Destruction of the goats/tares?
The Vine usually represented Israel/jews in the OT. It sure seems to resemble Isaiah 5 and the parable of the Vineyard in the gospels in a lot of ways.


18 And another angel came out from the altar, who had power over fire, and he cried with a loud cry to him who had the sharp sickle, saying, "Thrust in your sharp sickle and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth, for her grapes are fully ripe." 19 So the angel thrust his sickle into the earth and gathered the vine of the earth, and threw into the great winepress of the wrath of God. [i]20 And the winepress was trampled outside the city, and blood came out of the winepress, up to the horses' bridles, for one thousand six hundred furlongs.

Revelation 11:1 Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel stood, saying, "Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there.

[spiritmech]

Spiritmech, InChrist:

No sir. Our Rapture (1Thes. 4:17) occurs in the moments that precede Revelation 1:10. Note that Christ has His brand new ‘body’ in Rev. 1:12-18. Check us out, as we are awesome. : 0 ). The ‘body of Christ’ (Eph. 4:12) is already inside the Lamb for the remainder of Revelation. From the perspective of Israel, we have been there all along.

Why would you criticize Faramir in such a way? Do you perceive that he is like the guy carrying a knife to a gun fight? In that case, perhaps we do agree on something. Please jump in at any time, Spirit, two knives are as good as one . . . :eek:

In Christ,

Terral

I'm not criticizing Faramir. He's trying his best, but it seems it's pointless. I agree with him, and I think he's right. But Eschatology just isn't much fun lately <shrug> Just same stuff rehashed over and over again.

Steve

[Amazing Rando]

I'm not criticizing Faramir. He's trying his best, but it seems it's pointless. I agree with him, and I think he's right. But Eschatology just isn't much fun lately <shrug> Just same stuff rehashed over and over again.

Steve

Not to mention certain people with zero sense of humor and only pompous bluster for a personality. :wink:

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Faramir,

I haven’t seen you much lately. Welcome back.
Thanks for the warm welcome.

You raise two questions.

The proper answer to this must come from scripture. I had been taught like many that this expression does preclude knowing the year. That conveniently precludes date-setting for the parousia. Unfortunately, scripture gives us exactly one passage to help us out. Fortunately, it is in the Olivet Discourse, the very passage with the problematic statement!
Matthew 24:45-51 45 "Who then is the faithful and sensible slave whom his master put in charge of his household to give them their food at the proper time? 46 "Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes. 47 "Truly I say to you, that he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 48 "But if that evil slave says in his heart, 'My master is not coming for a long time,' 49 and shall begin to beat his fellow slaves and eat and drink with drunkards; 50 the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour which he does not know, 51 and shall cut him in pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites; weeping shall be there and the gnashing of teeth. (This is the same statement found in Luke 12:42-26.)

The sense of this parable is one of indefiniteness. There is no way that the slave can know even approximately when the master is coming. If he were to know roughly when the master was about to return, he could straighten up shortly before that time. But he doesn’t even know with that degree of possibility. He is completely clueless. That is why the master will surprise him when he returns. Thus, I believe that the common teaching is correct.
Thanks Ted for actually addressing my point with something other than assertion. But of course I expect no less from you.

However, I disagree with your interpretation (but then I think you knew that :wink: )


Your interpretation does not hold water. If the condition is 100% cluelessnes on the servant's parts, the the sign's of these things to come are equall meaningless. If some one sees the signs of these coming things, then the servant can "straigten up" at the last minute as well.

Your interpretation make both the signs and the 'this generation' meaningless. Both the signes and the this generation statement (no matter how you interpret it) give some paramaters as to when these things are to take place.

If the condition of the servant is truely clueless, then why even give the paramaters earlier in the discours?

I also agree that the proper answer must come from scripture. Which is why Matt. 24:34 is the key. Jesus set very broad parameters by saying "this generation" and as you know the preterist interpretation says that the events took place 40 years later. 40 years is a long time to remain deligent if you are not a "true sevant".

Using the parables to determine what the paramater established in 24:34 is backwards. You assume that the servant parables mean that there is no clue as to the date or time, yet Jesus gives us several.

Further, to argue that I can’t know the day or hour, but that I can know the year, is a sophistry that tries to circumvent the thrust of the Discourse. The parables that follow the “day or hour” passage all try to paint the same picture. “You don’t know when I am coming back. So stay ready.” Thus, the only way I can see to handle this is that applying a “generation” calendar to the parousia (Matt 24:3) is misguided. And that brings us to the second question (in more ways than one).

If that were the proper subject, we would be done. In fact, while “this generation” is always contextually defined (I’m not arguing for “age” or any of those other ideas.) in this case, the context is defined as the destruction of Jerusalem.
Are you also saying that the signes are related only to the temple and that the parables are related to the physical second coming?

If that is the case, I would have to say that I disagree, but do not see that as being in conflict with an overall preterist interpretation.

It also makes may earlier argument in this post irrelevant to your position. But since I am not 100% sure, and I will leave the post as is for now.

Matt 24:3 has two, independent questions. DeeDee has tried to argue that this is irrelevant, but I must respectfully disagree. The first question is clearly about the destruction of the temple, and is delimited by “these things” (meta tauta) and the singular “end” (telos). 24:34 is within a discussion identified by those keys. In fact, “this generation” is explicitly linked with “these things” in the sentence. To try to sever them would require a miracle.
Well on this we agree. IIRC you aslo agree that this was the destruction of the temple then standing that was destroyed in AD 70. Is this correct.

I want to make sure where we agree and where we disagree before I make any further comments that require much thought.

The second question is about the parousia, and is linked with the plural synteleia (24:3). That form of “end” is better translated “consummation,” and refers to the end of all threads of human existence, not simply the thread of Jewish woship in Jerusalem and the temple. The very form of the question clearly separates two issues. And Jesus answers both, in quite distinct ways.
Couldn't the consumation also be the consumation of the old covenant?\

I will wait until you clarify which points we are in disagreement over before I comment further.

I would also like to ask that we take this to another thread as my intent in starting this thread was limitted in scope to a preterist v. futurist view, and you are not a futurist.

So if you are interested in continuing this discussion please start another thread, or I will, as I am alsways interested in dialoging with you. Especially when we disagree, you always make me think.

Your friend in Christ,

Faramir.


Having said that, the “day or hour” statement is not within a “these things” discussion! It is within a discussion of the parousia, which is NOT at AD70. Jesus had been speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem in verses 4-26. That’s pretty clear. But notice the contrast in verses 26-27.
Matthew 24:26-27 26 "If therefore they say to you, 'Behold, He is in the wilderness,' do not go forth, or, 'Behold, He is in the inner rooms,' do not believe them. 27 "For just as the lightning comes from the east, and flashes even to the west, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be.
Jesus is saying that the false messiahs of the pre-AD70 era should be ignored because the parousia will be sudden and universal in scope and appearance. “For” in the beginning of verse 27 might better be translated “because.” He makes His point by contrast, and thus segues into a discussion of the parousia. He continues on in this mode, throwing verses 34-35 in as a parenthetical to reinforce two things - the absolute truth of his statement – and the nearness of the destruction of Jerusalem. The rest of the Discourse is devoted to the parousia, which is far more important than AD70. Of particular importance is the fact that in 36-42 the universal annihilation of the wicked at the parousia is declared. That didn’t happen in AD70.

I know this may seem somewhat away from the narrow approach you asked for, but I believe that your narrow approach forces us into a false dilemma by requiring that there be only one subject of the Discourse. Jesus was asked a compound question, and he answered both parts. One segment was local, and the other global. One was near, and the other far.

Ted[/QUOTE]

[Terral]

Ted, Faramir:

Congratulations on a very good presentation in Post #2, Ted; very well done.
Faramir to Ted >> Your interpretation make both the signs and the 'this generation' meaningless. Both the signes and the this generation statement (no matter how you interpret it) give some paramaters as to when these things are to take place.
No sir. This is part of the fallacy of Preterism that the third party reader should work diligently to understand. Christ is describing events of the ‘day of the Lord,’ and particularly the segment of time after Satan has been loosed from the pit (Rev. 20:7). The dragon (Rev. 13:1+) is the one to give power to the beast (man of sin; 2Thes. 2:3), so that he can take his seat in the Temple of God ‘displaying himself as being God.’ 2Thes. 2:4. This is the moment Paul describes as “in his time.”

“Let no one in any way deceive you, for unless the apostasy comes first [ Matt. 24:4-12 ], and the man of lawlessness is revealed [ Matt. 24:15 ], the son of destruction [ first beast; Rev. 13 ], who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship [ Rev. 13:4, 8, 12, 15 ], so that he [ beast ] takes his seat in the temple of God [ in holy place; Matt. 24:15 ], displaying himself as being God. Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time [ during the Day of the Lord ] he will be revealed.”
John describes these events in Revelation 13, saying,

“And he opened his mouth in blasphemies against God, to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle [ Temple of God ], those who dwell in heaven. It was also given to him to make war with the saints [ all over whole earth; Rev. 3:10 ] and to overcome them, and authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation was given to him. All who dwell on the earth will worship him [ in Temple of God ], everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.”
The words from the mouth of the man of sin are blasphemies to those in heaven, but he is ‘God Himself’ to those who worship him on the earth. The important thing to realize is that these are ‘day of the Lord’ (1Thes. 5:1+2) events. Christ did not know the day or hour that the DAY OF THE LORD started, and therefore could not know if ‘this generation’ (Matt. 24:34) living in that day would see all those signs. After all, the ‘day of the Lord’ itself comes like a thief in the night:

“Now as to the times and the epochs, brethren, you have no need of anything to be written to you. For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night.”
Therefore, ten, twenty or a thousand generations could pass by before the ‘day of the Lord’ actually started. We have been living through all those generations for the past 2000 years, and the day of the Lord has not come yet. This body of Christ church (Eph. 5:32) will be ‘caught up’ (1Thes. 4:17) the instant that the day of the Lord is ‘at hand.’ 2Thes. 2:2. Then the ‘day of the Lord’ (2Pet. 3:10) itself is as ‘a thousand years.’ 2Pet. 3:8, Rev. 20:5, etc. Then near the ‘end of the age’ (Matt. 24:3+) the ‘generation’ (Matt. 24:34) to see ALL THOSE SIGNS in Matthew 24:3-29 shall see the ‘Your coming’ and the ‘end of the age.’

After the ‘day of the Lord’ STARTS, then it is possible to calculate the exact number of days from the Prophecies. Christ speaks of the ‘abomination of desolation’ in Matthew 24:15, when the ‘man of sin’ takes his seat (2Thes. 2:3+4) in the holy place. Daniel gives the exact number of days to the end from THAT POINT.

“From the time that the regular sacrifice is abolished and the abomination of desolation [ Matt. 24:15 ] is set up, there will be 1,290 days. “How blessed is he who keeps waiting and attains to the 1,335 days!”
Note very carefully that the ‘abomination of desolation’ is about something being ‘set up.’ This is where the ‘man of sin’ takes his seat in the holy place [ Matt. 24:15 ] and displays himself as being God Himself. Desolation is not coming upon the Temple, but upon all those who WORSHIP HIM.

“Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God [ desolation ], which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”
How shall the ‘beast / man of sin’ deceive the whole world into believing he is God Himself, if he comes and destroys the very ‘Temple of God’ he needs to pull off his deception? The Preterist interpretation of Matthew 24 is so wrong, they are not even beginning to understand the true meaning of ‘abomination of desolation,’ and how that fits into the overall interpretation of these ‘global’ (Rev. 3:10) end time events.
Faramir to Ted >> If the condition of the servant is truely clueless, then why even give the paramaters earlier in the discourse?
You are missing the point, Faramir. The faithful servant knows the signs of the times and believes Christ’s prophecies for ‘Your coming’ and the ‘end of the age.’ He knows the prophecies of Daniel by heart and shall be able to recognize all of these things coming. The unfaithful servant is the secular non-religious guy who believes the Bible is a bunch of nonsense. He will be caught worshipping the beast and very much happy to be wearing his mark. After all, God Himself (Not) has taken his seat in the Temple of God and come to rid the planet of all those religious fanatics (faithful / elect) that he really cannot stand or tolerate. These are good times for those who worship the ‘man of sin,’ while he blasphemies and desecrates the Temple of God, but bad times of persecution for the faithful servant being chased, hounded and persecuted to the very end.

In Christ,

Terral

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Faramir:

LoL. You have just proven that the Preterists here are injecting that interpretation into the definition of Christ’s term.

So? That is what exegisis is all about. If Christ meant "this generation" to be the generation then living, then surely He had a clue as to when these things would take place. Right?

And is this any different than futurist injecting thier interpretation into the term "this generation"?

Well it is because preterist base thier 'injectin' on sound exegisis, while futurist forece thier interpretation on the text.

Christ is saying that the generation to see ALL THESE SIGNS will not pass away, until ALL THESE THINGS are complete.

LoL. You have just proven that the Futurist here are injecting that interpretation into the definition of Christ’s term.

Two can play at the assertion game. Tell me why you think "this generation" means some future generation when "that generation" would have made more sense in the context?

More scriptural reasoning less assertion.
Christ is answering the question from His Disciples about “Your coming” and the “end of the age.” Matt. 24:3. The then gave a laundry list of exactly ‘what’ would occur up to the END OF THE AGE. He then said,

You left out the part where the disciples asked about the destruction of the temple. How convenient. The end of the age of the old covenant ended with the destruction of the temple in AD 70.

“Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away. But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.”
He could not say that this generation to see all these signs was living in that day or any day, because He does not know the day or hour EVEN NOW. There is no way He could know the decade, year or century.

ButHe did know the generation. We are going around in circles here. The ultimate question is what is the correct interpretation of "this generation". Give me some scriptural proof that "this generation" is not the generation then living, or I will have to conclude that you are not a 'true' futurist.



The problem with your theory is that Christ had no clue about ‘when’ any of this would happen. Therefore, He could not possibly identify the ‘generation’ to be living at the ‘end of the age,’ according to the ‘day or hour.’ The only clues He could give was the ‘end of the age’ signs of those times.

The problem with your theory is you ignor the huge clue provided in Matthew 24:24. Not to mention the dozen of other scriptures that teach as "soon" "near at hand" "must shortly take place" aspect of the Day of the Lord.

You use 24:36 to interpret 24:34. I use Matthew 24:34 (and all the other "soon" "near" "at hand" passage) to interpret Matthew 24:36.

One of us is wrong. You use one verse to explain away a possible difficulty in many verses. I use many verses to explain away a possible difficulty in one verse.

Which one of us has more scriptural support for our arguments?

You are merely assuming that He is addressing the generation living in that day,

No Sir. You are mearly assuming He is not.

I am assuming that "this generation" means the same thing that it means everywhere else it is used in scripture. I am assuming that when Jesus said the temple would be destroyed within a generation and it was He validated His claims as the Messiah.



then forcing all of OT and NT Prophecy to be fulfilled in 70 AD

:rant: This is a blatantly false statement. Those who believe all of the OT and NT Prophecies were fullfilled in in AD 70 are heretics an not part of the body of Christ. I would rather be a futurest than a hyper preterist!!!!!

I will excuse your overstatement out of ignorance but for future reference I find the accusation that I take all of the OT and NT prophecies as fullfulled as an extreme and hurtful insult.

You should know better, though you should know better because you are familier with the definition of preterist on the board which says we believe most of the propehcies have been fullfilled. This is a very importat distiction. Preterist believe in the future physical comming of Christ, the future physical ressurection of the dead, and the future judgment of all. Those who do not beleive this are heretics and outside of the body of Christ.

[quot]using a very heavy hammer to force the round and square pegs anywhere you desire. [/quote]

And I can say the same thing about futurist. Yet this proves nothing. Start trying to prove your position instead of asserting it.

To do that you must turn a blind eye to most everything written about the ‘day of the Lord’ which is not even yet ‘at hand.’ 2Thes. 2:2. Our church in the world today is standing in anticipation of the same ‘gathering together to Him’ (2Thes. 2:1), as the Thessalonians of Paul’s day. We are to be ‘caught up’ (1Thes. 4:17) at the moment that the day of the Lord is ‘at hand.’ 2Thes. 2:2. The ‘times and epochs’ (1Thes. 5:1+2, Acts 1:7) relating to the day of the Lord (1Thes. 5:2) is when the kingdom is restored to Israel (Acts 1:6+7). You have events of the day of the Lord being fulfilled long before the day of the Lord is even at hand. Of course, you have no idea of the contradictions you have just created by interpreting Scripture in that way, but that is your problem and not mine.

There you go again. Instead of addressing my point about the meaning of "this generation" you bring up stuff about "the Lords Day". I can address each these issues, but that would just lead us down a rabbit trail. Lets stay focused on Matthew 24:34 shall we?


Christ did not know the day or the hour (Matt. 24:36), much less the decade or century. The problem with your poor illustration is that we are describing events that transpire during the ‘day of the Lord.’ Paul tells you why Christ had no clue about the day or the hour:

“Now as to the times and the epochs [ See Acts 1:6+7 ], brethren, you have no need of anything to be written to you. For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night.”

Can you provide scriptural evidence that the day of the Lord coming like a thief in the night, precludes it from coming in the generation then living?

[quote]Paul did not have the need to write these Thessalonians about the actual events of the day of the Lord, because they would be gathered to Him (1Thes. 4:17) at the instant that the day of the Lord BEGAN. Why write about events that shall occur when these people are in heaven looking down on those things?

Got to love that logic. In that case the events describing the day of the Lord should not be written down at all. Well at least not until those who will live to see are alive.

Wait, that is exactly what happened. We may make a futurist out of you yet.

We are members of the same ‘body of Christ’ (Eph. 4:12) mystery church (Eph. 5:32) that was on the earth in Paul’s day. That is why Paul’s Epistles still have direct application to us now, because we are also the members of the ‘dispensation of God’s grace’ (Eph. 3:2) still in the world anticipating the Rapture of 1Thes. 4:17. THAT FACT tells you that the ‘day of the Lord’ has still NOT STARTED.

This is a strawman, but one possibly out of ignorance. But i agree with you that 1 Thes. 4:17 is a still future event. Remember, preterist beleive that most of the prophecies have been fulfilled. You really need to get a better understanding of the preterist position. I will also tell you this, the preterist archives site that you listed in another post is an heretical hyperpreterist site. Don't subscribe to the preterist here everything that you read there.

And FYI hyperpreterist are not allowed to post in the eschatology forum so all preterist you see posting her are orthodox (or if they are hyper that is not known to the mods).

The Thessalonians were disturbed by rumors that they had missed the gathering of 1Thes. 4:17.
That is the purpose of Paul’s second letter to them, where he says,

“Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ [ 1Thes. 4:16+17 ] and our gathering together to Him, that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.”
The original Greek here actually says “day of Christos” or the “day of Christ,” but Paul uses the phrases interchangeably to the same audience to describe the same gathering event (1Thes. 5:1+2, 2Thes. 2:1+2).

What is your scriptural support for this assertion. How do you know he is not talking about two different events? (note: I am not saying he is or he isn't talking about two different events, I just want something more than your assretion that what you say is true.)

The important thing to realize is that the events of the ‘day of the Lord’ cannot start, until that day actually COMES. In order for the Preterists to prove that the ‘day of the Lord’ prophecies are already fulfilled, they must also prove that we missed the ‘gathering’ of 1Thes. 4:17.

Strawman. I believe 1 Thes 4:17 is still fuure.

The repercussions of such a misinterpretation alters most everything Paul teaches as ‘sound doctrine’ for the body of Christ in the world today. After all, if the day of the Lord has come, then the body of Christ church is already gone.

How about there is more than one "Day of the Lord"? But I do not want to get into that discussion on this thread. I want to talk about Matthew 24:34-36. Let's try to stay on topic.

<snip>posturing with no substance<snip>

Another Preterist control freak . . . Since you also have started a thread bearing my name and bringing my testimony into question, then expect me to defend myself and my views anyway I see fit.

1 This thread title does not bear your name. Will you admitt that you made a rash untrue statement again? No.


2. You are allowed to defend your views anyway you see fit on threads you start.

However, the way you see fit is to bring dozen of other side issues into it and never really addressing the main issue. That is the reason I started this thread with it's narrow focus. If you do not wish to defend you view this way, stay out of my thread.

This is what I have experience from you in the past and want to avoid:

Terral: This is my view A.
Faramir: This is my view, and why I think your view is wrong.
Terral: Well if your view is correct then how do you explain my view of X.
Faramir: This is my view of X which is perfectly compatable with my view of A.
Terral: Well if this is your view of X then how do you explain my view B.
Faramir: This is my view of B, which is compatable with my view of X. Tell me specifically why you think my view of X is wrong.
Terral: It is incompatable with my view of A.

Repeat ad infinitum.
If you wish to limit the discussion to one aspect of a subject, then mention THAT SUBJECT only in your OP.

Since you believe Matthew 24 is already fulfilled, then that takes us right up to the ‘end of the age.’ John is describing end of the age events throughout Revelation. So those also must be fulfilled in your view.
Right. So. I have a different interpretation of "end of the age" than you do. The "end of the age" was in AD70 with the end of the temple sacrifice age. And that is what we are discussing. And yes, I beleive that Revelation also deals with the end of the age. But I want to limit the discussion to Matthew 24, specifically to verse 34-36.

I can understand your reasoning for not wanting to answer questions regarding all of the contradictions your interpretation creates throughout the Bible.

I have no problem answering any question you bring up. However, I want to address each issue one at a time. Otherwise we have an endless circle of me answering your objections in one area, you ignoring that by saying, yeah, but what about X, me answering X you ignoring that answer, then asking me about Y ad infinitum.

I will make a deal with you. You pick one question. The one you think is the strongest for futurism, the weakest for preterism. I will answer that question, if you promise to address my response and not bring up a zillion other issues. :deal:

That is why you guys want to limit your deception to one thing without regard to anything else.
Strawman. We want to limit it to one thing at a time. I could make a similar accusation agains you:

Terral wants all threads to be a free for all so he can introduce a new topic at any time in order to avoid addressing the points on the actual topic of the thread.

That is called a red herring :rhani: which is yet another falacy to add to your collection. (You just about have them all don't you).
Perhaps you should have investigated more on how your theology corrupts everything else, before you adopted it.

Actually I did do that. I examined my theology, saw how much it corrupts everything else, then abondoned futurism for preterism. :woohoo:

I think your theology corrupts everyting else, but I do not want to spend time running in circles saying "yeah, but what about X and what about Y".

I cannot imagine that the typical Preterist has much of a knowledge pertaining to the long list of ‘day of the Lord’ prophecies and the retraining imperatives contained within them.

Then you are wrong.

For example: This means that “His Spirit” must be poured out on “All Mankind” (Acts 2:17) BEFORE the Judgment part (Acts 2:19-21) can even begin. This is connected to the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ going to the whole world (Matt. 24:14) before the ‘end will come.’ But then again, you probably have not stopped long enough to consider the differences between the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ (Matt. 24:14) and Paul’s ‘Christ and Him Crucified’ (1Cor. 2:2) gospel we preach today. Not to worry though . . . the secrets of men will be judged according to Paul’s “my gospel” (Rom. 2:16). That may not come up at the Judgment . . .

Everything in your OP is fair game, partner. Thank you for making it so very long and about so very much.

In Christ,


My OP is about Matthew 24:34-36. If you want to discuss other things start your own thread. Otherwise stay out of mine.


But then I undersand. Remember I was once a futurist. The futurist theory is so nebulous that if any one part falls the whole thing collapses. You must be afraid to stay on one topic for any length of time, otherwise you will have to question your whole eschatology.

See we can both play the blame game, but that accomplishes nothing. I have stated my reasons for limiting my thread. Plus I have refuted your reason as to why I am limmiting the topic.

You said I wanted to avoid exposing the contradictions in my position. I have offered to answer any one contradiction that you see. (And if you can stay on topic for that one, I will answer any other one that you may have to offer).

All I ask is that we deal with one topic at a time. If you can't do this, then I can only assume your only reason for wanting to add numerous topic to a thread with a narrow intent is because your position is so weak that you can not defend any position but must rely on red herring to distract your opponent.

So do we have a deal? :deal:

Will you stay on topic (and I will let you pick the topic) and I will answer any question that you have. Of course part of the deal is that you address my answer. Asserting that I am wrong is a deal breaker as is asking, but what about X.

If you want an example of how such an exchange would work, just look at the post by Ted in this thread. He told me why he thougth I was wrong. He didn't try to use "day of the Lord" theology or "blood bridle high" to refute me, he used the text itself, he stayed on topic.

So do we have a deal? Can you put your money where your mouth is? :deal:

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

I honestly don't know why you even try, Faramir. <shrug>
spiritmech et al.

Well, I have a couple of reason:

1. Whenever someone makes an assertion that is not answered, that assertion takes on the effect of truth whether it is true or not. I feel that assertions against preterism need to be answer.

2. My main reason however, is to help a brother become a better debater. If I can get Terral to focus, quit making sloppy overstatement, I think he could be a pretty good debater. He has the passion for futurism, he needs the focus of debate skills. A good debater is an enjoyable debate. (which is why I enjoy debating with Ted, Bill the Cat, and others). If I can improve Terral's debate skills, it will make Terral a better debater, and make Tweb a better board.

I am hoping that if I hammer hard enough that he needs to focus and stop making sloppy overstatements and chacing topics in circles. But I am beggining to think it is futile.

[Amazing Rando]

You're right Far- maybe we ought to get Bill in to talk to him and show him how to debate intelligently.

[dizzle]

Faramir, a word of encouragement. Iam enjoying your posts - I use good points to incorporate into my commentary - and you are doing a great job with this - I need to flesh out that one paragraph in my commentary

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Ted, Faramir:

Congratulations on a very good presentation in Post #2, Ted; very well done.
Well did you even read Ted's post. Unless I am mistaken Ted agrees with me that "This generation" means the then living generation, and is talking about AD 70 distruction of the temple. It was his assertion that it was not related to "no man knows the day".



No sir. This is part of the fallacy of Preterism that the third party reader should work diligently to understand. Christ is describing events of the ‘day of the Lord,’ and particularly the segment of time after Satan has been loosed from the pit (Rev. 20:7). The dragon (Rev. 13:1+) is the one to give power to the beast (man of sin; 2Thes. 2:3), so that he can take his seat in the Temple of God ‘displaying himself as being God.’ 2Thes. 2:4. This is the moment Paul describes as “in his time.”

There you go adding Revelation into this. If you want to do that though, you have to make it releavent to John 24:34. What is your scriptural reasoning for saying that this is after Rev. 20:7? And, "If my interpretation of Matt. 24:34 is right then it fits" is not support.
My interpretation of Rev. 20:7 fits my interpretation of Math 24:34 as well. Let's try to stay focused.

Otherwise we have a big circle. I hold to A becuase it fits B because it fits C because it fits A becasue it fits B, etc. etc.

Can you suport your interpretation of "this generation" without asserting that all of your other interpretations of all other eschatalogical positions are true. Here I will help:

IF (that is hypothetically), your interpretation of Matthew 24:34 is correct, then all of your other eschatological positions are correct. It all hinges on Matthew 24:34, if you've got that wrong, all of your other assumptions fall apart. Is this why you are afraid to stay on topic? Are you afraid that your position is so precarious that if any one area falls, it will collops like a house of cards?

Be afraid, be very afraid. I was the same way. I wanted to hold on to my futurism. I did not want to recognize the clear teaching of scripture. But when I realized that when Jesus said "this Generation" he didn't really mean "that" generation, then my whole eschatology colapsed.

It is painful at first, but so much better afterword. The pain is worth it. Go ahead, cross over into preterism.

:borg:


<snip> more off topic "points"
You see Terral, the problem with futurism is that it is a made up eschatology with no real biblical support. Of course you can show that verse X supports verse A. Your system forces it's interpreations on the passages so of course they all fit together. The reason you are having such a hard time staying focused, is that you can support your interpretation based on the verse itself.

This is your sole tactic so far:

Mathew 24:34 could not possibly mean the generation then living becuase then my interpretation of verse X will be false. Well guess what, I think your interpretation of verse X is false most of the time (at least as regards to eschatology). All you are doing is baiting me into another argument. i don't want to argue anything else in this thread. I want to argue Matthew 24:34-36. Can you make a case for your interpretation of Matthew 24:34 without appealing to a (this interpretation is still future, so it can't mean the generation still living.)

I can make an appeal to my interpritation of Matthew 24:34 without making an appeal to "this prophecy was fulfilled in the first century" so it must mean the generation still living.

That is why I consider peterism far superior to futurism. We take Christ words literally when He said, "This generation shall not pass away...", then we look for fulfilliment, in "this generation".

Futurist on the other hand have a preconceived interpretation and force the clear words of Christ to mean something other than "this generation".

If I am wrong prove it!!!!

And hint: Saying "Well prophecy X is still future, then it can't mean the generation then living" Otherwise you are just proving my point that your theology is driving your interpretation instead of the proper order of your interpretation driving your theology.

In Christ,

:sig:

[Terral]

Faramir:
Faramir >> Well did you even read Ted's post. Unless I am mistaken Ted agrees with me that "This generation" means the then living generation, and is talking about AD 70 distruction of the temple. It was his assertion that it was not related to "no man knows the day".

Ted Original (with my highlights) >> The rest of the Discourse is devoted to the parousia, which is far more important than AD70. Of particular importance is the fact that in 36-42 the universal annihilation of the wicked [ ungodly men; 2Peter 3:5-12 (7) ] at the parousia is declared. That didn’t happen in AD70. I know this may seem somewhat away from the narrow approach you asked for, but I believe that your narrow approach [ Amen ] forces us into a false dilemma by requiring that there be only one subject of the Discourse. Jesus was asked a compound question, and he answered both parts. One segment was local, and the other global. One was near, and the other far.
Ted’s commentary is 100 percent more accurate than anything the typical Preterist is saying, where you are trying to force Christ into speaking of strictly local events. I am simply giving credit where it is due.
Terral Original >> No sir. This is part of the fallacy of Preterism that the third party reader should work diligently to understand. Christ is describing events of the ‘day of the Lord,’ and particularly the segment of time after Satan has been loosed from the pit (Rev. 20:7). The dragon (Rev. 13:1+) is the one to give power to the beast (man of sin; 2Thes. 2:3), so that he can take his seat in the Temple of God ‘displaying himself as being God.’ 2Thes. 2:4. This is the moment Paul describes as “in his time.”

Faramir >> There you go adding Revelation into this. If you want to do that though, you have to make it releavent to John 24:34. What is your scriptural reasoning for saying that this is after Rev. 20:7? And, "If my interpretation of Matt. 24:34 is right then it fits" is not support. My interpretation of Rev. 20:7 fits my interpretation of Math 24:34 as well. Let's try to stay focused.
Please . . . Christ is describing events that transpire just before the ‘end of the age.’ Matt. 24:3-31. Those are the final years of the ‘day of the Lord,’ or the “Lord’s day” (Rev. 1:10) as John says. The events that occur during the day of the Lord are all part of the same period. When do you believe the ‘day of the Lord’ prophecies are fulfilled? In the next age? Heh. If you believe that all the OT and NT prophecies relating to the ‘day of the Lord’ were fulfilled in 70 AD, then you are blind as a fencepost, and nothing I say will help. Paul says that the current church is ‘caught up’ (1Thes. 4:17) when the day of the Lord is “AT HAND.” 2Thes. 2:2. Are we having some kind of mental block in comprehending what this means? When the ‘day of the Lord’ COMES, then we are gathered to the Lord at our RAPTURE.

Are you noticing that there is no Temple of God in Jerusalem today, and no way for the antichrist to come and set up his ‘abomination of desolation?’ That is because Elijah must come first [ protos; Matt. 17:10 ] and restore ALL THINGS. Matt. 17:11. When Jesus Christ says “all things,” do you suppose that means just ‘some things?’ Apparently so . . . Anyway, that includes the Temple and the ‘tabernacle of David’ (Acts 15:16-18) just like the prophecies say. I must assume that your Bible contains more than just Matthew 24 . . . Holy Molies . . . And that you have spent at least some time studying what must occur doing the DAY OF THE LORD. The ‘abomination of desolation’ (Matt. 24:15) is set up [ Dan. 12:11+12 ] by the ‘man of sin’ (2Thes. 2:3+4) or the first ‘beast’ of Revelation 13. Bury your head in the sand if you wish. Christ is describing the final years of the Day of the Lord in Matthew 24:3-31. We know because His disciples just asked about His coming and the END OF THE AGE. John is also describing the ‘end time’ events that lead up to heaven and earth passing away (Matt. 24:35, Rev. 20:11). The new age comes in with the new heaven and the new earth of Revelation 21:1+. Therefore, Christ and John are describing events that occur at the VERY SAME TIME.

Revelation says >> Rev 3:10 “Because you have kept the word of My perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth.”

Christ says >> Luke 21:25+26 “There will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth dismay among nations, in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves, men fainting from fear and the expectation of the things which are coming upon the world; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
Your concocted interpretation of Matthew 24 has blinded you from seeing the light of the truth relating to this entire ‘day of the Lord’ topic. In your attempts to justify an invented and distorted explanation of a few verses of Scripture you have lost sight of the fact that Christ is giving an answer to His chosen elect about the ‘end of the age’ (Matt. 24:3+). Holding onto false doctrine will blind the minds of those believing (2Thes. 2:10-12). That is why we are having this discussion in the first place . . .
Faramir >> IF (that is hypothetically), your interpretation of Matthew 24:34 is correct, then all of your other eschatological positions are correct. It all hinges on Matthew 24:34, if you've got that wrong, all of your other assumptions fall apart. Is this why you are afraid to stay on topic? Are you afraid that your position is so precarious that if any one area falls, it will collops like a house of cards?
The Preterist interpretation is flat on its back, partner. You have failed to even connect these Matthew 24 events to the ‘day of the Lord.’ Your narrow view was developed by giving “this generation” a corrupt meaning, which led to you localizing everything that Christ is saying this chapter. All of your X, Y, Z lingo does not mean anything . . .

In Christ,

Terral

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

<snip>more off topic stuff<snip>


Are you noticing that there is no Temple of God in Jerusalem today

This is on topic, but not in the way Terral intended it to be. Of course I noticed there is no Temple of God in Jerusalme today. In fact I (and other preterist) notice that Jesuse predected that there would be no Temple in Jerusalem 40 years before it was destroyed. :doh:

The disciples asked: "When will the temple be destroyed?"
Jesus says: Within this generation.
It happens just as Jesus said.

Yet futurist act as if this were just a conincidence.
Give me a break.

<snip>more off topic junk <snip>

We know because His disciples just asked about His coming and the END OF THE AGE. John is also describing the ‘end time’ events that lead up to heaven and earth passing away (Matt. 24:35, Rev. 20:11).

How do "we" know this. You know this, I do not. Please tell me what exeetical prowess you used to come to this notion.
(Note I agree that Rev. 20:11 is talking about the end of time. But how do you get end of time from "end of the age"?)

<snip> Terral just repeats himself <snip>
<snip> more off topic junk<snip>
<snip>more rude postureing<snip>
Terral, if you can't stay on topic. Stay out of my thread!!!!
The topic is Not the Day of the Lord. Yes, my interpretation of 'this generation" is not compatable with your interpretation of "The Day of the Lord". I have a different interpretation of Day of the Lord. But this thread is not about Day of the Lord it is about "This Generation"

Give me everything from the context of Matthew 24 (you can even use 23-25 if you like, because I plan on doing the same) that indicates to you that "this generation" means some future generation.

So far all you've given is Mt. 24:36 which says that Jesus did not know the day or the hour. My response was that you are correct, Jesus did not know the day or the hour, but that does not preclude Him from knowing that it would happen within that generation.

Tell me. Why do you think Mt. 24:36 precludes Jesus from knowing detail greater than the day and the hour. There is certainly nothing in the passage that says, "Jesus did not know the day or the hour or event he millenium" it just says day and hour.

To help keep you on topic I will ask very specific question. Which I doubt you can answer:

1. Why do you think that Jesus not knowing the day and hour, precludes Him from knowing that it would occur in that generation?

2. What other evidence do you have from the context of Matthew 23-25 to indicate that this generation means something other than the clear and simple meaning of that phrase?


I predict that you will not answer these two questions. I predict you will 1. Assert that you are right (and no asserting is not answering a question), 2. Ask me questions about other areas (Yes, if my interpretation of 'this generation' right, your interpretation of those other passages are wrong. Let me clue you in on something. I think your interpretation of most of those passages is wrong, so asking me about them does not support your argument with me in any way.)
3. And contiue to berate me and my position.

Pove me wrong. Prove to me that you can stay on topic. Answer these two question. Feel free to ignore the rest of my post. Is that too much to ask?

In Christ,

:sig:

P.S. Did you intitionally ignore my first response to you in this thread (post number 12) or was it accidental. I ask because I want to know if you are brave enough to accept the deal I proposed.

[Terral]

Faramir:
Terral Original >> We know because His disciples just asked about His coming and the END OF THE AGE. John is also describing the ‘end time’ events that lead up to heaven and earth passing away (Matt. 24:35, Rev. 20:11).

Faramir States Obvious >> How do "we" know this. You know this, I do not. Please tell me what exeetical prowess you used to come to this notion.(Note I agree that Rev. 20:11 is talking about the end of time. But how do you get end of time from "end of the age"?)
Revelation 20:11 is not about the ‘end of time.’ What ever gave you that idea? We head right into the new heavens and new earth in the very next chapter. Rev. 21:1+. The ‘end of the age’ comes when the rulers of this darkness are judged and thrown into the lake of fire (Rev. 19:20, 20:10), along with all of their cronies (Rev. 20:11-15). The New Jerusalem era begins in Revelation 21:1+, and you believe that means the end of time? No sir. Paul describes that in 1Cor. 15:27+28, when God is ‘all in all.’ That does not occur for a very long time, as Paul also speaks of the ‘ages to come.’ Eph. 2:4-7 (7). The Judgment of Rev. 20:11-15 (Matt. 25:31-33) marks the transition between this current ‘evil age’ (Gal. 1:4) and new heavens and new earth of the coming age.
Faramir >> Terral, if you can't stay on topic. Stay out of my thread!!!! The topic is Not the Day of the Lord. Yes, my interpretation of 'this generation" is not compatable with your interpretation of "The Day of the Lord". I have a different interpretation of Day of the Lord. But this thread is not about Day of the Lord it is about "This Generation"
Heh. Christ is describing ‘end of age’ events of the ‘day of the Lord,’ and you do not want to talk about it . . . Very well. “This generation” is the one to see all the signs of Matthew 24:3-29. They are the ones who would see “Your Coming” at the “End of the Age.” Matt. 24:3. Christ could not know if that generation was living in that day or 10,000 years in the future.

“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.”
In Christ,

Terral

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Faramir:
Terral Original >> We know because His disciples just asked about His coming and the END OF THE AGE. John is also describing the ‘end time’ events that lead up to heaven and earth passing away (Matt. 24:35, Rev. 20:11).

Faramir States Obvious >> How do "we" know this. You know this, I do not. Please tell me what exegetical prowess you used to come to this notion.(Note I agree that Rev. 20:11 is talking about the end of time. But how do you get end of time from "end of the age"?)

Revelation 20:11 is not about the ‘end of time.’ What ever gave you that idea? We head right into the new heavens and new earth in the very next chapter. Rev. 21:1+. The ‘end of the age’ comes when the rulers of this darkness are judged and thrown into the lake of fire (Rev. 19:20, 20:10), along with all of their cronies (Rev. 20:11-15). The New Jerusalem era begins in Revelation 21:1+, and you believe that means the end of time? No sir. Paul describes that in 1Cor. 15:27+28, when God is ‘all in all.’ That does not occur for a very long time, as Paul also speaks of the ‘ages to come.’ Eph. 2:4-7 (7). The Judgment of Rev. 20:11-15 (Matt. 25:31-33) marks the transition between this current ‘evil age’ (Gal. 1:4) and new heavens and new earth of the coming age.



Thank you for once again proving my point. Instead of actually answering my question, Terral first goes off topic: (Hint whether the New Heavens and the New Earth are the end of time or not is hardly germane). We both agree that that is future to us that should be the end of discussion on this topic. You could have correct me and said that you do not think that the New Heavens and the New Earth are the end of time, and been done with it. Yet you spend most of your response addressing this off topic topic.



Only your last sentence actually “addresses” (and I use that term loosely) my question. But let me give you a clue. I already know that you believe that Matt. 25:31-33 marks the transition between the current ‘evil age’ and the coming age. I would even agree, but I place the beginning of the transition in AD 70 or there abouts and we are currently in the transition period (aka millinium). So you have not provided me any new information. All you have done is assert your position.



I don’t want you to post verse and assert that these verses support your position. I know what your position is and I do not think that these verses support your position. I want to know why you believe these verses support your position. Is that too much to ask.

I am beginning to think, that you have no idea how the verses you quote actually support your position. I am beginning to think that you are just regurgitating what you were taught. I can think of no other reason as to why you hold dogmatically to a position that you can not even explain.



But don’t feel bad. I used to be the type of person who just regurgitated what they were taught. You can overcome this too.

Do what I did. I was a born and bred died in the wool futurist. I believed it lock stock and barrel. But I could not explain why I believed it. So I began to study eschatology. Not just any eschatology, but futurist eschatology. My hope was to have a greater understanding of why futurist believe the way we (remember I was a futurist back then) do. My goal was to be able to defend futurism. I was not trying to find a new eschatology.



To my initial dismay (I really wanted futurism to be true) , but eventual joy (when I finally embraced preterism it was like an epiphany) , I realized that there are no answers to the why questions of futurism*. So it is not really surprising that you can do nothing but regurgitate what you were told.

I have a suggestion. Why don’t you go and find out why you believe what you do, then come back and become an effective defender of futurism. (Unless of course you come back as an able defender of preterism. It could happen. :wink: )

Faramir >> Terral, if you can't stay on topic. Stay out of my thread!!!! The topic is Not the Day of the Lord. Yes, my interpretation of 'this generation" is not compatable with your interpretation of "The Day of the Lord". I have a different interpretation of Day of the Lord. But this thread is not about Day of the Lord it is about "This Generation"

Heh. Christ is describing ‘end of age’ events of the ‘day of the Lord,’ and you do not want to talk about it.



You stated that I “failed” to connect end of the age with Day of the Lord. However, I do connect end of the age with Day of the Lord. I just think that there is more than one Day of the Lord. However, that is not the topic of this thread.



The question I asked you in the last post (Which you failed to answer and only asserted your position). Was why do you connect The Day of the Lord in Rev. 20 with the ‘end of the age’ in Matthew 24. I see them as two separate events. You see them as the same. So I will add another question:



3. Why do you connect the Day of the Lord in Rev. 20 with the end of the age in Mt. 24?



Very well. “This generation” is the one to see all the signs of Matthew 24:3-29. They are the ones who would see “Your Coming” at the “End of the Age.” Matt. 24:3. Christ could not know if that generation was living in that day or 10,000 years in the future.

“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.”



This is getting real tiring Terral. I know what you believe. I don’t need for you to repeat it for the umpteenth time. What I want for you to do is to tell me why you believe what you do. But since I am fairly certain that you don’t really know. I won’t hold my breath. :eww:



And thank you so much for proving me right. You did not answer my questions from my previous post, just like I predicted. If I am right about that, then just maybe I am right about my hunch that you are clueless (like you accuse Jesus of being clueless, ironic isn’t it) as to why you believe what you believe. Heck, chances are that I am even right about preterism.

However, I actually liked to be proven wrong. So I will ask the same questions I asked before (plus the new one I came up with in this post). Please do not feel any need to respond to any other part of this post, just answer these three questions. Heck, I’ll even make it easy for you. Answer any one of these questions, and you will prove me wrong:



1. Why do you think that Jesus not knowing the day and hour, precludes Him from knowing that it would occur in that generation?

2. What other evidence do you have from the context of Matthew 23-25 to indicate that this generation means something other than the clear and simple meaning of that phrase?

3. Why do you connect the Day of the Lord in Rev. 20 with the end of the age in Mt. 24?
In my last post I said:

I predict that you will not answer these two questions. I predict you will 1. Assert that you are right (and no asserting is not answering a question), 2. Ask me questions about other areas (Yes, if my interpretation of 'this generation' right, your interpretation of those other passages are wrong. Let me clue you in on something. I think your interpretation of most of those passages is wrong, so asking me about them does not support your argument with me in any way.)
3. And continue to berate me and my position.

You proved me right once. I know that must irritate you to know end. So I am giving you another opportunity to prove me wrong. And I am making it even easier. I have added a question, and you only have to answer one of them to prove me wrong. (Though you may answer all three if you like)

Also, you never did let me know if you were willing to take the deal I offered in post #12:



I will make a deal with you. You pick one question. The one you think is the strongest for futurism, the weakest for preterism. I will answer that question, if you promise to address my response and not bring up a zillion other issues. :deal:



I am asking you to answer my specific question. And it would only be fair, if I allowed you to do the same. Right? I am not asking anything of you, that I am not willing to subject myself to. In fact, you have got the sweetheart end of the deal. I have given you three questions, you only have to answer one. I am letting you pick only one question, and I have not choice. I can't think of any reason why anyone who knew why they beleived what they beleived would refuse this deal.

Howver, I don’t think you will take this deal either. I have been right so far.

Prove me wrong..

In Christ

:sig:

*Terral. In the asterisked sentence above, I committed one of the classic blunders that you always seem to commit. Five pearls if you can guess which blunder it is.

[Ted]

Faramir,

You have my condolences. Terral is a classic example of someone who has been indoctrinated into a belief, but doesn't understand it well enough to explain it. And that is a poor way to be a Christian, and a terrible way to do Bible study.

Terral,

You have no respect from any of us at present because you haven't learned how to limit yourself to a narrow issue. Further, you haven't learned how to present those ideas you think you have command of in a concise manner. Faramir's initial post demanded contextual analysis of scripture related to a single, narrow issue. I did that when I looked at the parable that used the same language. (As it turned out, I didn't answer every question, so further discussion might be in order.)

Now, I went beyond the bare limits because I thought that those artificially constrained the narrow issue in a way that might compromise a careful answer. But again, I tried to stay within the narrow confines of what was necessary. And I looked at the original Greek as a key. I didn't go to other passages, because it wasn't necessary.

If you wish for your comments to be considered seriously, then please keep them as close to the point as possible. Further, consider drafting them in a word processor, printing them out, editing, then posting after dinner. That way you will be better organized, more concise, and likely closer to the question in view.

This will be my last post in this thread. I said what I needed to say, and repetition (shouting louder) won't add anything.

Ted

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Faramir,

You have my condolences. Terral is a classic example of someone who has been indoctrinated into a belief, but doesn't understand it well enough to explain it. And that is a poor way to be a Christian, and a terrible way to do Bible study.

Terral,

You have no respect from any of us at present because you haven't learned how to limit yourself to a narrow issue. Further, you haven't learned how to present those ideas you think you have command of in a concise manner. Faramir's initial post demanded contextual analysis of scripture related to a single, narrow issue. I did that when I looked at the parable that used the same language. (As it turned out, I didn't answer every question, so further discussion might be in order.)

Now, I went beyond the bare limits because I thought that those artificially constrained the narrow issue in a way that might compromise a careful answer. But again, I tried to stay within the narrow confines of what was necessary. And I looked at the original Greek as a key. I didn't go to other passages, because it wasn't necessary.

If you wish for your comments to be considered seriously, then please keep them as close to the point as possible. Further, consider drafting them in a word processor, printing them out, editing, then posting after dinner. That way you will be better organized, more concise, and likely closer to the question in view.

This will be my last post in this thread. I said what I needed to say, and repetition (shouting louder) won't add anything.

Ted
Thanks Ted.

I also apreciate your first post in this thread. You did manage to stay on topic, you did manage to support you position, and most importantly, you managed to keep it cordial, even though we disagree on some of the points.

Terral:

Teds first post (and I hope my response to him) is an example of the type of arguments I am trying to get you to make. I hope that Ted will start another thread in which he addresses his take on Mt. 24. I would love to go and have a civil discourse (even though I disagree with Ted on some of his interpretations) with Ted.

In fact I would love to have a civil disourse with you. However, you have yet to give any indication that you are capable of civil discourse.

Once again, I hope (but at this point have very little conviction) that you will prove me wrong.

[Terral]

Ted:
Ted >> Faramir, You have my condolences. Terral is a classic example of someone who has been indoctrinated into a belief, but doesn't understand it well enough to explain it. And that is a poor way to be a Christian, and a terrible way to do Bible study.
You guys must forgive me, but the opinions and judgments from my debating opponents do not mean anything. Please take this crying towel as a souvenir of our discussion.
Ted >> Terral, You have no respect from any of us at present because you haven't learned how to limit yourself to a narrow issue.
How does this speak to the topic of “This generation” and Christ not know the “day or the hour” these things would all take place? My posts above are on the topic, and you fellows are out of arguments. Is that the sound of ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’ I hear in the background?
Ted has more >> Further, you haven't learned how to present those ideas you think you have command of in a concise manner.
Perhaps that is why my debating opponents have so much difficulty in trying to refute them. Post #17 above is short and to the point. Post #3 is long, but the OP is very long also. If I give a short reply to a long post, then you cry that I am evading the points. You should be attacking your friend Faramir for drafting such a large OP instead of me for giving a reply.
Ted has even more >> Faramir's initial post demanded contextual analysis of scripture related to a single, narrow issue. I did that when I looked at the parable that used the same language. (As it turned out, I didn't answer every question, so further discussion might be in order.)
Faramir’s OP has one thousand thirty two words and is all over the place. My name appears in the topic sentence of his OP, which makes me part of the topic if not 'the' topic. You are now working to make “Terral” even more of the topic of this thread by this whining and dining . . . I would love to be answering your ‘on topic’ points in this reply, but you are not making any. This Board appears to be more about ‘friends helping friends’ with these ‘love letter’ posts, instead of actually debating the topics using Scripture. You gave up the right to judge any of the posting members on this thread the moment you entered the debate. The third party readers are the judges as to whether either side of the discussion has presented a good case. My hope is that both of you will keep up the crying . . .
Ted >> Now, I went beyond the bare limits because I thought that those artificially constrained the narrow issue in a way that might compromise a careful answer. But again, I tried to stay within the narrow confines of what was necessary. And I looked at the original Greek as a key. I didn't go to other passages, because it wasn't necessary.
This thread is not about you, Ted. Does your name appear in the OP? Were any of your interpretations of Scripture called into question? Is Faramir trying to use this thread in order to discredit your testimony all over this Board? Mr. Faramir is the one to try and write a thousand words about me and my explanations of Scripture. Now that his arguments are being defeated, the chorus of whining begins. The boundaries of this topic are governed by what Faramir declared in the OP, and not what he chooses at random. That is like me calling your wife every name under the sun, then saying, “but we are only going to talk about her indiscretions on this thread.” No sir. We are not going to play those games here.
Ted >> If you wish for your comments to be considered seriously, then please keep them as close to the point as possible. Further, consider drafting them in a word processor, printing them out, editing, then posting after dinner. That way you will be better organized, more concise, and likely closer to the question in view.
Do not delude yourself into believing that anyone on this Board is going to start threads about me and my Scriptural beliefs to then tell me how to defend myself. You will do better to write on what you perceive to be ‘the topic’ of this thread, and stop trying to influence my answers to Faramir’s points. You really have some nerve . . .
Ted whining louder >> This will be my last post in this thread. I said what I needed to say, and repetition (shouting louder) won't add anything.
Please try again when you have more ammunition for your arguments. My apologies for pointing out the fact that your statements in Post #2 supported my interpretation of Matthew 24 more than those of your friend.

In Christ,

Terral

[Terral]

Faramir:
Faramir’s curtsy before Ted >>Thanks Ted. I also apreciate your first post in this thread. You did manage to stay on topic, you did manage to support you position, and most importantly, you managed to keep it cordial, even though we disagree on some of the points.

Faramir >> Terral: Teds first post (and I hope my response to him) is an example of the type of arguments I am trying to get you to make.
Heh. You guys represent a real piece of work. You are saying, “We want you to debate with us, but this way and not that way . . .” As I told your friend above, the opinions and wishes of my debating opponents do not mean anything. Your name appears at the top of my reply because we disagree over points described in your OP. My arguments are aimed at the third party reader, so that he can judge both sides in a better light. My “Preterist Debate Thread” has about 200 posts as we speak. That is the most of any thread on this page including the “Sticky Posts” at the top. Do you believe that all those posts are on topic? No way. Dee Dee wrote about a dozen that contained only personal attacks against Mickey and me. Did I complain anywhere in the thread? No. You guys are missing the point of how these off topic posts solidify and demonstrate the truth of my original hypothesis. The third party reader sees that my debating opponents are out of arguments, and gnashing their teeth. I do not believe the third party readers to your thread will accuse me writing outside the topic of your 1032 word OP, partner . . .

Christ is describing “end of the age” events and signs that shall precede “Your coming” (Matt. 24:3) and when He is standing “at the door” (Matt. 24:33). That includes a whole bunch of “Day of the Lord” (1Thes. 5:1+2) signs that you say were fulfilled in 70 AD. Therefore, I am left with many avenues that all work to disprove your hypothesis while also forwarding my own interpretation that all of these things are still future. After all, Paul says that our church is ‘caught up’ (1Thes. 4:17), when the day of the Lord is ‘at hand’ (2Thes. 2:2), and we are still here. Therefore, all “day of the Lord” events are STILL FUTURE. Perhaps my Preterist debating opponents are unaware of the significance of this point, but some among the third party readers know exactly what I am saying is true. The Preterists cannot defend against points in which they cannot see or understand, but that is your problem; not mine. You are trying to limit the number of arguments that I am going to send your way. Heh. Good Luck!
Faramir >> I hope that Ted will start another thread in which he addresses his take on Mt. 24. I would love to go and have a civil discourse (even though I disagree with Ted on some of his interpretations) with Ted.
Your love for Ted is an impressive sight for one to behold. I am willing to bet that he does not begin his OP with my name in the Topic Sentence; and that he does not use over 1000 words to start a narrow conversation. The Preterists on this site appear to be control freaks who want to sell their wares freely and uninhibited, but wish to limit the ways in which others discredit their errant interpretations. My Preterist Debate Thread will continue to grow, because I encourage anybody here to present any point that supports or discredits my interpretation of Scripture. If they get off topic then I have no reason to even give a reply, because what they said does not mean anything. Your control freak threads will likely never get over 100 replies, because even those who support your position are apprehensive about stepping outside the little itsy bitsy circle you have drawn around ‘the topic.’ Your friend Ted is leaving this thread over the perception that he has already addressed your extremely constricted point.

What the third party reader is witnessing is the Preterist desire to play a shell game, as if accurately interpreting the truth of God’s word is a magic trick. They want to do a sell job on you that ‘this generation’ really means ‘your generation,’ as if Christ knows the ‘day and hour’ of all these signs. Then he expects you to carry that false teaching and understanding into the remainder of the Text, so that you also will be blinded from seeing that all of those events (Matthew 24) occur during the ‘day of the Lord.’ (Acts 2:17-21). After all, if you forget that Christ is talking about ‘this generation’ being the one to see ‘all’ the ‘signs’ of ‘these things,’ then they can begin using their shell game tactics to convince you of just about anything. That is how false theologies like Preterism get started in the first place. Now that others have bought the delusion, they are here to gathering you in by the same tactics. If you do fall for their trickery, then it is your own fault; because I have shown you the difference.
Faramir >. In fact I would love to have a civil disourse with you. However, you have yet to give any indication that you are capable of civil discourse. Once again, I hope (but at this point have very little conviction) that you will prove me wrong.
Just present your Preterist case to the best of your ability, and let’s allow the chips to fall where they may. If the third party reader believes that I have presented a bad case, then perhaps you shall win by default. But, I would not hold my breath on that one . . .

In Christ,

Terral

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Ted:

You guys must forgive me, but the opinions and judgments from my debating opponents do not mean anything. Please take this crying towel as a souvenir of our discussion.

Earlier in this thread you were applauding Ted. Is his argument only good when (you think) he agrees with you?

Get a clue Terral.

It must be great to be so smart that you are never wrong.




Perhaps that is why my debating opponents have so much difficulty in trying to refute them. Post #17 above is short and to the point. Post #3 is long, but the OP is very long also.

Actually Terral it is quite easy to refute your points. That's the problem. I am trying to get you to focus, in order for you to present a better argument. Or at the very least to see that you have no argument.

My guess is the latter, but I still hope that you can prove me wrong.

If I give a short reply to a long post, then you cry that I am evading the points.

It is not the size of the post that is the problem, it is the constant repeating of yourself, and wandering all over the place.

Actually I wish your post were longer (but on topic at the same time).

If you took the time to explain why you think a verse supports your position, instead of just writing the verse and asserting it supports your position, it would be a much more productive discussion.


My name appears in the topic sentence of his OP, which makes me part of the topic if not 'the' topic.

You are the topic. Sorry, I though your interpretation of Mt 24:34-36, and my refutation of the same was the topic.

And since I made the OP, I should know. But I guess I was wrong, the subject is not the norrow topic that I though I meant, but really the topic is Terral.

:sigh:



You are now working to make “Terral” even more of the topic of this thread by this whining and dining . . . I would love to be answering your ‘on topic’ points in this reply, but you are not making any.

He is not making any at my request. I wanted this thread to be futurist/preterist. Ted's brand of historicism would just make less focused. Ted was being polite.
This Board appears to be more about ‘friends helping friends’ with these ‘love letter’ posts, instead of actually debating the topics using Scripture.

Oh, you mean like you and Mickey in the Preterist debate thread? Oh, but I forget, you are the great Terral who knows all and is the subject of every thread. When you do it it is different.

Or is it just possible that you are not a very good at presenting a coherent in depth defense of your position. I am for from alone in stateing this.


My guess is the latter.

Also note, I disagree with Ted on many issues, but I do not tell him that he is not answering my questions or evading.

Why do you think that is? Maybe it is because Ted is capable of making an argument beyond mere assertion, and deeper than a cursory statement.

You gave up the right to judge any of the posting members on this thread the moment you entered the debate.

You mean the way you are judging Ted? This reminds me of something about a speck and log.
The third party readers are the judges as to whether either side of the discussion has presented a good case. My hope is that both of you will keep up the crying . . .



Gee, my hope is that you will start to present a cohernet in depth argument for you position. While this will be more difficult for me to refute, I don't particularly like easy wins.

However, if you keep denying your poor performance thus far, then I get the easy win anyway.

This thread is not about you, Ted. Does your name appear in the OP? Were any of your interpretations of Scripture called into question? Is Faramir trying to use this thread in order to discredit your testimony all over this Board?

And of course you know my own motives better than I. I do not need to discredit you all over this board. You are doing an outstanding job of this all by yourself.

In fact, I am trying to keep you from doing the oposite. I am trying to get you to focus in order to make you a better defender of futurism. (Or even better a preterist, but I would gladly settle for the latter.)

Mr. Faramir is the one to try and write a thousand words about me and my explanations of Scripture. Now that his arguments are being defeated, the chorus of whining begins.

:rofl: That is too funny. How can you defeat my arguments when you don't even address them.

As to the thousand words. I have diluted that down to thred question. You have yet to even attempt to answer any of them.

Don't worry. I will give you another chance:



1. Why do you think that Jesus not knowing the day and hour, precludes Him from knowing that it would occur in that generation?

2. What other evidence do you have from the context of Matthew 23-25 to indicate that this generation means something other than the clear and simple meaning of that phrase?

3. Why do you connect the Day of the Lord in Rev. 20 with the end of the age in Mt. 24?


Also, if you have so soundly refuted my arguments, why dont' you take me up on my deal:


I will make a deal with you. You pick one question. The one you think is the strongest for futurism, the weakest for preterism. I will answer that question, if you promise to address my response and not bring up a zillion other issues. :deal:




We will let third party readers decide. Yet this is the third time I have posted this, and you have yet to even acknowledge it.

Don't delude yourself into thinking third party readers won't notice how you have been given every opportunity to put your money where your mouth is, but have evaded every time.

The only conclusion is that your position is bankrupt, and you have no money, only mouth.
The boundaries of this topic are governed by what Faramir declared in the OP, and not what he chooses at random.

Bottom line is, the whole question is about the interpretation of ‘this generation’. Therefore, as thread starter I ask that all debate be limited to the interpretation of ‘this generation’.


That is like me calling your wife every name under the sun, then saying, “but we are only going to talk about her indiscretions on this thread.” No sir. We are not going to play those games here.

Wrong. It is like you calling my wife every name under the sun on your turf, me coming here and saying, I want to address this one name you said and no more on my turf.

Now you are coming to my turf and not respecting my wishes. Bad form. Terral. Bad form.

If you want to discuss another topic start your own thread. No one is stopping you. But if you want to participate in my thread, stick with my topic.

In fact I started this thread to address an off topic comment you made in another thread. You seem to have a hard time respecting the wished of thread starters.


Do not delude yourself into believing that anyone on this Board is going to start threads about me and my Scriptural beliefs to then tell me how to defend myself. [quote]

Don't delude yourself into thinking that you can disrepect the thread starter and not get edited. :glare:

If you want to "defend" yourself, take it somewehre else. Again, not one is stopping you.
[quote]You will do better to write on what you perceive to be ‘the topic’ of this thread, and stop trying to influence my answers to Faramir’s points. You really have some nerve . . .

Please try again when you have more ammunition for your arguments.

My experience with Ted is that he has plenty of amunition for his arguments. Even when I disagree with him. He always makes me think. Which is why I am having this converstation with you and not him.

(Hint. The same assertion over and over and over again is not a lot of ammnition)

My apologies for pointing out the fact that your statements in Post #2 supported my interpretation of Matthew 24 more than those of your friend.

Are you apologizing for being wrong. Ted's interpretation is somewhere between yours and mine. It doesn't really come 'closer' to either.

Though his interpretation of the topic of this thread (this generation) is actually closer to my view than yours. (Though his interpretation of "no man knows the day..." is closer to yours.

If you can "defeat" my arguments so soundly prove it. I have given you three questions. Answer any one of them, if it is so easy to refute me. (Unless by refute you mean change the subject instead of addressing the topic. I know you have a habit of making up your own definitions)

Otherwise stay off my thread.

[John Reece]

. . .

The second question is about the parousia, and is linked with the plural synteleia (24:3).

. . .
Ted

Ted,

Perhaps the misstatement above was inadvertent, in which case you would want to correct it.

The form of the word highlighted above re 24:3 is sunteleias (sunteleiaV), which is NOT plural; it is a singular genitive of sunteleia which (as you have indicated in your post) = "consummation" (singular).

[Terral]

Faramir:

Above is a post from you with 1619 words. Let us see how many of them are ‘on topic.’ (never wrong, quite easy, productive discussion, snip)
Terral Original >> My name appears in the topic sentence of his OP, which makes me part of the topic if not 'the' topic.

Faramir >> You are the topic. Sorry, I though your interpretation of Mt 24:34-36, and my refutation of the same was the topic.
Have you ever taken a writing class in your life? Your thesis statement is not what you claim it to be, but is established by the outline of your work. http://www.ecf.toronto.edu/~writing/handbook-stratwr2.html (http://www.ecf.toronto.edu/~writing/handbook-stratwr2.html)

Quote From Article >> “Thesis Statement -- A thesis statement (topic sentence) is a brief declaration of the contents or main idea of the information that follows. The thesis statement of a document is usually the first sentence of the first paragraph; however, if the topic is very complex or the reader requires background information, an equally effective place for the thesis statement is the last sentence of the first paragraph.

Recall that a “topic” is a general statement of “subject,” and a title gives the main idea of the document you are writing (see also: conclusion). The thesis statement is even more informative, because it also describes your writing strategy:”
Your claim is that you are presenting a very narrow topic, which is demonstrated by the fact that your opening paragraph has just one sentence!
Faramir >> “This is in response to a post made by Terral in this thread. I started a new thread because the subject at hand is way off topic for the thread in question, and I wanted to respected the wishes of the thread starter and keep that thread on topic.” (Then quoted Terral to say)

“Terral starts out pretty good here. He shows that he has at least a good grasp of the preterist interpretation. In fact he says that if preterist are right in their interpretation that “this generation” in Matthew 24 is speaking of the first century, then preterist are right.”
If I am grading your work, then it is handed back over terrible structure, because your intended ‘topic’ is first mentioned after five references to me.
Faramir >> And since I made the OP, I should know. But I guess I was wrong, the subject is not the norrow topic that I though I meant, but really the topic is Terral.
“Narrow” has only one ‘o’ partner. Perhaps you are only guilty of bad penmanship . . . (Ted polite, Mickey, coherent, snip)
Faramir >> 1. Why do you think that Jesus not knowing the day and hour, precludes Him from knowing that it would occur in that generation?
Christ gave ‘all’ the ‘signs’ of ‘these things’ so that the generation living in that day would know “Your coming” and the “end of the age” was upon them. Christ told them that He did not know the ‘day or hour.’ Matt. 24:36.
Faramir >> 2. What other evidence do you have from the context of Matthew 23-25 to indicate that this generation means something other than the clear and simple meaning of that phrase?
“This generation” is the one to see “all” the “signs” of “these things” in Matthew 24. You are trying to borrow context from other chapters.
Faramir >> 3. Why do you connect the Day of the Lord in Rev. 20 with the end of the age in Mt. 24?
Because the events related to the ‘day of the Lord’ are the final things to be fulfilled in this age.

“But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up [ Rev. 20:11 ]. Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat!”
Peter is describing the Judgment phase of the ‘day of the Lord” here in 2Pet. 3:7-12. He gives a more complete description in his Acts 2 Address by dividing the fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32 into two parts.

“And it shall be in the LAST DAYS,' God says, 'That I will pour forth My Spirit upon ALL MANKIND; and your sons and your daughters shall prophecy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; even on my bondslaves , both men and women, I will in those days pour forth my of My Spirit; and they shall prophesy.”
This is Peter’s way of demonstrating that the “gospel of the kingdom” must be preached to the “whole world” and to all the nations, and then “the end will come.” Matt. 24:14. We can see that the Holy Spirit is given through the laying of hands for those believing the “good news concerning the Kingdom of God” (Gospel of the Kingdom; Matt. 24:14) in Acts 8:12-17 (17). That process is what is fulfilled in the whole earth during the seven church phases of Revelation 1-3. Then, Peter gives the remainder of the second half of the prophecy concerning the ‘great and terrible’ (glorious) “day of the Lord.”

“And I will grant wonders in the sky above and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke [ Matt. 24:29 ]. The sun will be turned into darkness and the moon into blood, and before the great and glorious day of the Lord shall come. And it shall be that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
The people who are calling upon the ‘name of the Lord’ are being baptized into the Kingdom of God on earth, just like the Samarians of Acts 8:12-17, and the disciples of Acts 19:1-6. They are being obedient to the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ that Christ is describing in Matthew 24:14. The ‘abomination of desolation’ (Matt. 24:15) is set up just after that ‘gospel of the kingdom’ goes to all the nations (vs. 14). That marks ‘his time’ (2Thes. 2:6) that the beast (Rev. 13) takes his seat in the holy place displaying himself as being God (2Thes. 2:3+4). Then we are just 1335 days to the very end, according to Daniel 12:11-12, to the ‘end of the age’ (Daniel 12:13, Matt. 24:3-31).
Faramir >> I will make a deal with you. You pick one question. The one you think is the strongest for futurism, the weakest for preterism. I will answer that question, if you promise to address my response and not bring up a zillion other issues.
The fulfillment of the ‘day of the Lord’ is a vast topic. Try starting threads on something other than the fulfillment of Prophecy to the ‘end of the age.’ (bankrupt, turf, form, thread starter, Ted snip)
Faramir >> Otherwise stay off my thread.
Take a good look around, partner . . . Ted is gone . . . The only posters to this thread are you, me and the peanut gallery. Who are you going to debate with if the topic of your thread leaves? Heh. GL,

The thread will die soon enough; no need to hurry it.


In Christ,

Terral

[spiritmech]

Faramir has done a fine job of describing the preteristic viewpoint WRT how much Jesus knew. There's not much to add, really. Faramir's a good writer. There's nothing wrong with a thesis statement coming at the end of the first paragraph.

SM

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Faramir:

Heh. You guys represent a real piece of work. You are saying, “We want you to debate with us, but this way and not that way . . .”



The only piece of work here is you Terral. You are correct, we want you to debate our way. The non-confusing, non-asserting, using reason instead of bluster way.



In other words, we find your style of debate poor to be honest, and I for one am trying to help make you a better debater.



I would like to think that if a preterist came to TWeb with the same style I would do the same thing.

As I told your friend above, the opinions and wishes of my debating opponents do not mean anything.



That is too bad, because I consider Ted one of the finist debaters at TWeb. But if you are too stuborn to take some constructive criticism from a much better debator than you (that would be Ted), then I guess you are satisfied with your poor defense of your position.



Your loss. And Twebs as well.



I have debated futurist who debate in the style that Ted (does) and I (try) to use. They are a pleasure. They challenge me. They even cause me to rethink my position.



You on the other hand are a boor.



I am not saying that to be mean or to belittle you. I am saying what I beleive to be the harsh truth, that you need to hear.



Maybe you need to ask yourself, are all these people wrong. Or is it just possible that I am not giving a good presentation of my position.



Because I can tell you, I have been debating eschatology for two years now, I have seen many good presentations of the futurist postion, and your's ain't one of them.



Your name appears at the top of my reply because we disagree over points described in your OP. My arguments are aimed at the third party reader, so that he can judge both sides in a better light.



If you think you have presented a better argument you are foolling yourself. In fact there has been no argument from either side (except when Ted and I exhanged post). There has been nothing but assertion. The difference is that I have made that clear, and you seem to think you have made some sort of argument.



I have no doubt that a third party reader will see it the same way.

My “Preterist Debate Thread”