Rebuttal To Dee Dee’s “This Generation” Commentary

[Terral]

Greetings:

Certain commentary has been written by a prominent member to this site (Dee Dee) which deserves some attention. You can find her entire work here: http://www.preteristlist.com/docs/warrenend.html (http://www.preteristlist.com/docs/warrenend.html)
Dee Dee Quotes >> Matthew 24:34: “Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.” (bookend snip)

Matthew 23:36: Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

Dee Dee >> Most futurists have to make "this generation" in the first reference mean something entirely different than the second in Matthew 24:34. I daresay the everyday futurist has not given it much thought. I know I didn't when I was a futurist ~ nor did I give much though to what the "gap" theory of Daniel 9 did to the significance of The Cross and of Christ.

What you are doing is borrowing context from another passage to prop up the interpretation you are about to invent. How many times do we find references to the scribes, Pharisees and/or hypocrites in Mathew 23? Scribes (9), Pharisees (9), hypocrites (7). Christ is railing on them for most of the chapter and is speaking of disobedient Israel as being ‘this generation’ in Matthew 23. How many times does Christ mention the Scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 24? Zero. You are Pretending that Christ is speaking of “Your coming” and the “end of the age” to the Scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23 in determining the ‘true’ context of His use of the phrase “this generation” in the following chapter.

The term ‘generation’ [ genea #1074 ] does not have an automatic meaning from chapter to chapter, but we must determine the true meaning by the context and the way in which Scripture is using it. The ‘generation’ to see all the signs of Matthew 24:3-29 would be living to see “Your coming” at the “end of the age.” This is not about how Futurists define anything, but how Christ is using the term. You are forcing a meaning upon ‘this generation’ here that is not accurate, which defeats your entire argument right here without my firing another shot.

Dee Dee >> PROOF NUMBER ONE: The phrase "this generation" everywhere else it is used in the NT refers to the generation then living, and the near demonstrative "this" makes it indisputable.
Context is determined by how the phrase is used in Matthew 24:34 and nowhere else. If you were finding the definition of Pharisee or Scribe (Matt. 23), then we could agree that these groups remain constant. However, the context of Christ’s teaching to His chosen disciples in Matthew 24 is exactly opposite of His railing against the Scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23. Borrowing definitions and context from other places in Scripture is not allowed for general terms like the one you are defining. In that case “people” would mean the same thing whether Jew, Gentile, saved or unsaved throughout Scripture.
Dee Dee >> PROOF NUMBER TWO: The destruction the Temple then standing in AD70 limits the fulfillment of the rest of the passage to the same time frame.
No sir. Christ is answering the question of His elect concerning “Your coming” and the “end of the age.” Matt. 24:3. You are trying to force that interpretation into the passage to prop up your hypothesis which is already flawed above. Christ is describing global events that shall affect the whole world, and not just Israel, Jerusalem or the Temple. Luke describes the same dissertation and says,


“. . . and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. 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.”
These are cataclysmic events that shall affect the whole world and all the nations. Surely you must realize that the ‘times of the Gentiles’ are not yet fulfilled to this day. The kingdom of Israel shall begin to be restored at the moment Satan is chained (Rev. 20:2) to start the ‘thousand years’ (2Pet. 3:8) of the ‘day of the Lord.’ 2Pet. 3:10. These ‘end of the age’ events cannot even begin to transpire, until Satan is loosed from his prison (Rev. 20:7) at the very END of those ‘thousand years.’ You are trying to make a case for the ‘times of the Gentiles’ being over (70 AD), when that is when Israel was scattered among the nations. The Roman Empire endured for hundreds of years following that event, and your case again has no historical basis in fact.

Dee Dee >> PROOF NUMBER THREE: The other "near" temporal indicators in the Gospels support the first century referent for "this generation," specifically Matthew 16:27-28 and Matthew 10:23
Please . . . that just means you are willing to borrow context from anywhere without determining how Christ is truly using the phrase here in Matthew 24. Those who agree with you on this topic are those also willing to use unsound methods of Bible interpretation in order to prop up their errant conclusions. Christ is connecting those who saw ‘the signs’ to ‘this generation’ who would see the end. Since He did not know the day or hour (vs. 36) then He disqualified Himself from knowing if that generation was living then or 10,000 years in the future.
Dee Dee >> PROOF NUMBER FOUR: The context of the Olivet Discourse is a clear first century Judean context, NOT the "end of the world" it is made out to in modern prophecy thought.
You mean ‘end of the age’ (aion) in this case. Unfortunately for your misguided notion, Christ’s answer to the Twelve was given in direct response to their question concerning “Your coming” and the “end of the age.” Matt. 24:3. Again, you are trying to give Christ’s language a foreign context to prop up your preconceived conclusions. This is not even a convincing argument for a vast majority of Bible students with only an elementary knowledge of Scripture. The funny thing about your statement here is in what Christ said directly in the middle of your two target verses: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.” Matt. 24:35. “Earth” here is not ‘aion,’ but is ‘ge’ (#1093) meaning in this case “earth as a whole,” along with heaven ‘ouranos’ (#3772) in the same verse. Christ’s coming at the ‘end of the age’ is to judge the living (Matt. 25:31-33) and the dead (Rev. 20:11-15). The heavens and earth pass away (Rev. 20:11) at that time. So Christ is literally speaking about the ‘end of the world’ (“ouranos kai ge”) as we know it.
Dee Dee >> Okay before I get started note that Jesus introduces His timing statement with the very emphatic "I tell you." The literal rendering of His words is, "Truly I tell you that by no means passes away this generation until all these things have happened." The "by no means" is a very strong double negative (ou me) in the Greek which creates added emphasis. Jesus is staking His very reputation upon these words.
The double negative does nothing to prop up your errant use of ‘this generation’ borrowed from Matthew 23. “This generation” is still the one living to see all those signs. All of those things simply did not happen back in 70 AD, as you would like to believe. The day of the Lord is not even yet ‘at hand’ (2Thes. 2:2), which is why our ‘body of Christ’ (Eph. 4:12) church is still here. The events of Matthew 24 are all part of the ‘day of the Lord’ described throughout Scripture a couple dozen times. The prophecies are interrelated so that certain parts must be fulfilled first for others to then come to pass later on. This is what we see with “His Spirit” being poured out on “All Mankind” (Acts 2:17), and then the Judgment part (Acts 2:19-21) coming after. This ‘gospel of the kingdom’ must be preached to the whole world (Matt. 24:14), before the ‘end will come.’

Your ‘this generation’ argument fails to find itself within the range of probability, when compared to the entire body of Scripture as a whole. Do you recognize the differences between the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ (Matt. 4:23, 9:35, Acts 8:12) in order to distinguish that from our ‘Christ and Him crucified’ (1Cor. 2:2) gospel for today? The ‘gospel of the kingdom’ had not gone to the whole world by the time of 70 AD, as it was never accepted by Israel in Jerusalem, and the hub of the Kingdom related to that gospel message. Jerusalem was leveled over the ‘transgression’ (Rom. 11:11+17) of a disobedient nation who rejected the kingdom and the King. God is going to build this ‘body of Christ’ (Eph. 4:11) first (Acts 15:14), and then ‘after these things’ He will restore the ‘tabernacle of David’ (Acts 15:16-18) during the coming restored Kingdom of God on earth.


In Christ,


Terral

[InChristAlways]

Dee Dee >> PROOF NUMBER FOUR: The context of the Olivet Discourse is a clear first century Judean context, NOT the "end of the world" it is made out to in modern prophecy thought. Hi Dee. Of course you are correct, but can I ask a very serious question for you and other preterists. If the Bible is the inerrant word of GOD, how can those who say the Olivet discourse is fulfilled, but still avoid the one verse in the Bible that can put bible fulfillment over the top. Luke 21!!!! Yes, it almost seems unthinkable knowing that ALL THINGS ARE FULFILLED, but then futurists would also have to disprove it, do you see what I mean?



THE MOST IMPORTANT PASSAGE IN THE WHOLE BIBLE concerning "that generation" and everyone just passes it by like it is not even there. WHY!??? The book of revelation is that Destruction without a doubt in my view.

Luke 21:20 " But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 "Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 "For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 "But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. 24 "And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

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(that generation of jews?). 2 "But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they will tread/TRAMPLE the holy city underfoot [for] forty-two months.

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

(NKJV) Luke 21:22 "For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
(NASB) Luke 21:22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled.
(KJV) Luke 21:22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.




(Young) Luke 21:22 because these are days of vengeance, to fulfil all things that have been written. (Greek/English Interlinear (tr) NT) Luke 21:22 oti <3754> {FOR} hmerai <2250> {DAYS} ekdikhsewV <1557> {OF AVENGING} autai <3778> {THESE} eisin <1526> (5748) tou <3588> {ARE,} plhrwqhnai <4137> (5683) {THAT MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED} panta <3956> {ALL THINGS} ta <3588> {THAT} gegrammena <1125> (5772) {HAVE BEEN WRITTEN.} Luke 21:22 ( KJV w/ Strongs Definitions ) For New Testament Greek Definition: 3754 hoti {hot'-ee}


neuter of 3748 as conjunction; demonst. that (sometimes redundant);; conj
AV - that 612, for 264, because 173, how that 21, how 11, misc 212; 1293
1) that, because, since these
New Testament Greek Definition:
3778 houtos {hoo'-tos} including nominative masculine plural
houtoi {hoo'-toy}, nominative feminine singular haute {how'-tay}
and nominative feminine plural hautai {how'-tahee}
from the article 3588 and 846;; pron
AV - this 157, these 59, he 31, the same 28, this man 25, she 12,
they 10, misc 34; 356
1) this, these, etc. be
New Testament Greek Definition:
1526 eisi {i-see'}
third person plural present indicative of 1510;; v
AV - are 135, be 14, were 7, have 2, not tr 1, misc 4; 163
1) are, be, were, etc.

New Testament Greek Definition:
5748 Tense - Present See 5774
Voice - No Voice Stated See 5799
Mood - Indicative See 5791
Count - 1617 the days
New Testament Greek Definition:
2250 hemera {hay-mer'-ah}
from (with 5610 implied) of a derivative of hemai (to sit,
akin to the base of 1476) meaning tame, i.e. gentle;
TDNT - 2:943,309; n f
AV - day 355, daily + 2596 15, time 3, not tr 2, misc 14; 389
1) the day, used of the natural day, or the interval between
sunrise and sunset, as distinguished from and contrasted with
the night
1a) in the daytime
1b) metaph., "the day" is regarded as the time for abstaining from
indulgence, vice, crime, because acts of the sort are
perpetrated at night and in darkness
2) of the civil day, or the space of twenty four hours (thus
including the night)
2a) Eastern usage of this term differs from our western usage. Any
part of a day is counted as a whole day, hence the expression
"three days and three nights" does not mean literally three
whole days, but at least one whole day plus part of two other
days.
3) of the last day of this present age, the day Christ will
return from heaven, raise the dead, hold the final judgment,
and perfect his kingdom
4) used of time in general, i.e. the days of his life. of vengeance
New Testament Greek Definition:
1557 ekdikesis {ek-dik'-ay-sis}
from 1556; TDNT - 2:445,215; n f
AV - vengeance 4, avenge + 4060 3, revenge 1, punishment 1, 9
1) a revenging, vengeance, punishment
++++
In 2 Cor 7:11 -- meeting out of justice; doing justice to all
parties. See Luke 18:3, 21:22. The word also has the sense of
acquittal and carries the sense of vindication.
- Vincent III p. 329 that all things
New Testament Greek Definition:
3956 pas {pas}
including all the forms of declension; TDNT - 5:886,795; adj
AV - all 748, all things 170, every 117, all men 41, whosoever 31,
everyone 28, whole 12, all manner of 11, every man 11,
no + 3756 9, every thing 7, any 7, whatsoever 6,
whosoever + 3739 + 302 3, always + 1223 3, daily + 2250 2,
any thing 2, no + 3361 2, not tr 7, misc 26; 1243
1) individually
1a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things,
everything
2) collectively
2a) some of all types
++++
... "the whole world has gone after him" Did all the world go after
Christ? "then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan."
Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan? "Ye are of God,
little children", and the whole world lieth in the wicked one". Does
the whole world there mean everybody? The words "world" and "all" are
used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very
rarely the "all" means all persons, taken individually. The words are
generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts
-- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not
restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile ...
C.H. Spurgeon from a sermon on Particular Redemption which
New Testament Greek Definition:
3588 ho {ho} including the feminine he {hay},
and the neuter to {to}
in all their inflections, the definite article;; article
AV - which 413, who 79, the things 11, the son 8, misc 32; 543
1) this, that, these, etc.
Only significant renderings other than "the" counted are written
New Testament Greek Definition:
1125 grapho {graf'-o}
a root word; TDNT - 1:742,128; v
AV - write 206, writing 1, describe 1, vr write 1; 209
1) to write, with reference to the form of the letters
1a) to delineate (or form) letters on a tablet, parchment,
paper, or other material
2) to write, with reference to the contents of the writing
2a) to express in written characters
2b) to commit to writing (things not to be forgotten), write
down, record
2c) used of those things which stand written in the sacred
books (of the OT)
2d) to write to one, i.e. by writing (in a written epistle) to
give information, directions
3) to fill with writing
4) to draw up in writing, compose

New Testament Greek Definition:
5772 Tense - Perfect See 5778
Voice - Passive See 5786
Mood - Participle See 5796
Count - 463 may be fulfilled
New Testament Greek Definition:
4137 pleroo {play-ro'-o}
from 4134; TDNT - 6:286,867; v
AV - fulfil 51, fill 19, be full 7, complete 2, end 2, misc 9; 90
1) to make full, to fill up, i.e. to fill to the full
1a) to cause to abound, to furnish or supply liberally
1a1) I abound, I am liberally supplied
2) to render full, i.e. to complete
2a) to fill to the top: so that nothing shall be wanting to
full measure, fill to the brim
2b) to consummate: a number
2b1) to make complete in every particular, to render perfect
2b2) to carry through to the end, to accomplish, carry out,
(some undertaking)
2c) to carry into effect, bring to realisation, realise
2c1) of matters of duty: to perform, execute
2c2) of sayings, promises, prophecies, to bring to pass,
ratify, accomplish
2c3) to fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the
law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises
(given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment

New Testament Greek Definition:
5683 Tense - Aorist See 5777
Voice - Passive See 5786
Mood - Infinitive See 5795
Count - 159

[dizzle]

Terral if I can free up some time I will respond - I can't promise though. For everyone reference since that commentary is quite lengthy you can find the exact place Terral is quoting from here:

www.preteristlist.com/docs/warrenend.html#matt2434

I would recommend that anyone interested in this thread go to that link and read the whole portion. Terral has extracted out parts (which he had to, to quote the whole thing would have been too lengthy) but in extraction, my argument was inevitably truncated.

[spiritmech]

Terral if I can free up some time I will respond - I can't promise though. For everyone reference since that commentary is quite lengthy you can find the exact place Terral is quoting from here:

www.preteristlist.com/docs/warrenend.html#matt2434

I would recommend that anyone interested in this thread go to that link and read the whole portion. Terral has extracted out parts (which he had to, to quote the whole thing would have been too lengthy) but in extraction, my argument was inevitably truncated.

He sure is trying the shotgun approach, isn't he. Rather than trying to understand preterism and finding its weaknesses, he just starts blasting away. Unfortunately, it's not persuasive nor is it interesting.

SM

[spiritmech]

Terral:

The term ‘generation’ [ genea #1074 ] does not have an automatic meaning from chapter to chapter, but we must determine the true meaning by the context and the way in which Scripture is using it. The ‘generation’ to see all the signs of Matthew 24:3-29 would be living to see “Your coming” at the “end of the age.” This is not about how Futurists define anything, but how Christ is using the term. You are forcing a meaning upon ‘this generation’ here that is not accurate, which defeats your entire argument right here without my firing another shot.

I agree that a word does not have an automatic meaning from chapter to chapter, but there is more context than an immediate verse. There is the context of the verse, the context of the chapter, and the context of the whole book. All of these add up to show that both John the Baptist and Jesus had something important to say to their generation and they were rejected by the powers that be.

This is not really a weak point of preterism. This is one of the strongest points of preterism, in fact. You're not very convincing.

SM

[dizzle]

Terral's post has numerous errors such as that - and which is why one cannot simply yank a piece out of my commentary, for what Terral has done is (yes it is inevitable in a forum discussion which is why I wrote a WHOLE commentary) is decontextualized even my commentary. How does my commentary start? It sets the context for the Discourse. That is what makes discussions like this so frustrating and not very fruitful, and why I have basically with argumentative types taken a "think what you want and have a nice day" approach. It is no skin off my nose what Terral thinks - people who wish to understand the view come to me and I assist them - I get no brownie points or ego stroke by "convincing" people and changing their mind.

[Amazing Rando]

:teeth: His baiting still isn't luring you out, Dee Dee. You've got a thick skin!

[dizzle]

Rando over the past several years, I have gained a quiet secure confidence in my position. I don't like unenjoyable debate, and it doesn't bother me that people disagree. I do enjoy when people are seeking understanding or perhaps want to consider this position, I spend a great deal of time with them - in fact the commentary arose out me spending a long time with Stephen and JohhnyB. This kind of stuff/challenges doesn't faze me. At one point, my pride would have demanded that I respond - no longer. It is a good place to be.

[eschaton]

I am not a premillennialist or a preterist so I don't fit in so well in these discussions. Preterists are determined to show how premill is wrong and vice-versa. I see both systems as based on excessive literalism, and so I think they are both wrong. Here is my opinion of the preterist argument from Ms. Dee Dee.

PROOF NUMBER ONE: The phrase "this generation" everywhere else it is used in the NT refers to the generation then living, and the near demonstrative "this" makes it indisputable.

When JESUS spoke of this generation He always spoke in the context of whether the generation was obedient or evil. What sense would it make for Jesus to condemn all those alive when the disciples and many followers were also among those alive when He spoke? This is shown when "this generation" is told THEY slew Zacharias son of Barachias who lived 500 years earlier. Had some of those standing before Jesus been alive for more than 500 years? They are called snakes and vipers, but we don't take that literally. Jesus said the sign of Jonah was for them. Jonah had lived 750 years earlier. Were some of those standing before Jesus 750 years old? Jesus was talking about spiritual qualities, not historical chronology.

PROOF NUMBER TWO: The destruction the Temple then standing in AD70 limits the fulfillment of the rest of the passage to the same time frame.

I don't agree that Jesus was talking about the Temple building. The disciples were referring to the literal temple, but Jesus was talking about the spiritual temple, His body, the church. That was also the view of many in the early church. You can see that reflected in the writings of Tyconius, Augustine, and even Iraneus. Jesus also spoke of not one stone left upon another in reference to the entire city of Jerusalem (Luke 19:41-44). This has never literally happened in history. That's because Jesus' teachings were spiritual.

Consider what happened in the Gospel. After Jesus' arguments with the Pharissees and Sadducees He was betrayed by Judas and the disciples were scattered. Not one stone was left upon another. When Judas realized his betrayal of innocent blood he stood in the extremity of the temple and cast away the silver. His betrayal was the abomination that led to destruction. He went and hanged himself. Then darkness loomed, the powers were shaken, and Jesus was crucified. Afterwards, the faithful were reunited with Jesus, but Judas had gone to his destruction. How different are these things from the Olivet discourse in a "spiritual" sense?

PROOF NUMBER THREE: The other "near" temporal indicators in the Gospels support the first century referent for "this generation," specifically Matthew 16:27-28 and Matthew 10:23

Jesus always spoke about spiritual qualities. The Kingdom is spiritual, not something you would go out to the desert to look for, so of course it was true that some standing before Him would see it. They were spiritually obedient. Those who are spiritually obedient by accepting Him today should also see His kingdom, should they not?

Who was Jesus speaking to? He said He was speaking to all, and we should watch (Mark 13:37). When Peter asked Him who He was talking to He said to the obedient servant (Luke 12:41-43).

PROOF NUMBER FOUR: The context of the Olivet Discourse is a clear first century Judean context, NOT the "end of the world" it is made out to in modern prophecy thought.

The context of the Olivet Discourse is spiritual, and not determined by history books. Jesus didn't teach about the OT by comparing it to extra-biblical history or referring to dictionaries. Instead He taught that He was the spiritual fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets.

I think between the two systems of interpretation the premill is more consistently literal. The preterist swithces back and forth between a literal and a spiritual interpretation of the discourse dictated by what their preconceived notion of what the context should be.

[dizzle]

Hey Eschaton - for some of your points I had already addressed them in the commentary, that is why I gave the whole link. You cannot quote only what Terral quoted and rebut it for that is not all that I said - Terral chose different points for what he wanted to respond to but the majority of your objections are dealt with in the commentary text (esp the "evil generation" argument)

[eschaton]

He Dee Dee,

I read through your page and didn't think I saw my points adequately addressed. Maybe I missed it though. I'll look at it again and respond if I feel it necessary.

Thanks,
Alan

[eschaton]

Hi Eschaton.
Concerning the preterists switching back and forth between literal and spiritual. Don't forget symbolic also.
Take a look at this verse in Zephaniah, one is symbolic of destroying everything off the face of the earth, while the literal says it is against Judah and Jerusalem, so again we know the end of the age or "consummation of all" is the destruction of Jerusalem and house of Judah, of which Jesus the messiah came from and the one that betrayed Him. This is what the olivet discourse is about and is about that "generation" alive when the temple was still standing.

Zephaniah 1:1 The word of the LORD which came to Zephaniah the son of Cushi, the son of Gedaliah, the son of Amariah, the son of Hezekiah, in the days of Josiah the son of Amon, king of Judah. 2 " I will utterly consume everything From the face of the land," Says the LORD; 3 "I will consume man and beast; I will consume the birds of the heavens, The fish of the sea, And the stumbling blocks along with the wicked. I will cut off man from the face of the land," Says the LORD. 4 "I will stretch out My hand against Judah, And against all the inhabitants of Jerusalem. I will cut off every trace of Baal from this place, The names of the idolatrous priests with the [pagan] priests -- 5 Those who worship the host of heaven on the housetops; Those who worship and swear [oaths] by the LORD, But who [also] swear by Milcom; 6 Those who have turned back from [following] the LORD, And have not sought the LORD, nor inquired of Him." 7 Be silent in the presence of the Lord GOD; For the day of the LORD [is] at hand, For the LORD has prepared a sacrifice; He has invited His guests.

Luke 21:23 "But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people.


Hi ICA,

Thank you for your comments. I believe that Israel and Jerusalem are symbolic of the church. I look for a spiritual fulfillment of these things in the gospel. Judas was destroyed and the disciples scattered. The church should be wary of similar events. I think the majority of the early church felt these events would happen to the church in the future. I think something akin to modern preterism, where the "great tribulation" was completely fulfilled in the first century, is very hard to find in the writings of the early church fathers, although it may have existed.

So I don't take the prophecy to Jerusalem and Israel literally, although the judgments against Israel in the OT may be seen as typological.

AF

[InChristAlways]

Hi ICA,

Thank you for your comments. I believe that Israel and Jerusalem are symbolic of the church. I look for a spiritual fulfillment of these things in the gospel. Judas was destroyed and the disciples scattered. The church should be wary of similar events. I think the majority of the early church felt these events would happen to the church in the future. I think something akin to modern preterism, where the "great tribulation" was completely fulfilled in the first century, is very hard to find in the writings of the early church fathers, although it may have existed.

So I don't take the prophecy to Jerusalem and Israel literally, although the judgments against Israel in the OT may be seen as typological.

AFThe early church couldn't figure out what revelation was about I believe(not their fault).
Not much I can say about that brother, but I assume you are a dispensationalist? who believe the Israel of today has a seperate "plan" in the bible(like a lot of churches today), and if so, then I can't really argue against that, as dispensationalism in my view is one of the most false doctrines in the religious world today. The "church" of that age would have been protected from the wraths as promised by Jesus and God. Anyway, thanks for your view. God bless.

Is Jerusalem here the church in our age or that age?

Matt 23:37 " O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under [her] wings, but you were not willing! 38 "See! Your house is left to you desolate; 39 "for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, 'Blessed He who comes in the name of the LORD!' "

Jeremi 1:[i]14 Then the LORD said to me: "Out of the north calamity shall break forth On all the inhabitants of the land. 15 For behold,I am calling All the families of the kingdoms of the north [notice the "10 kings" in revelation?]," says the LORD; "They shall come and each one set his throne At the entrance of the gates of Jerusalem, Against all its walls all around, And against all the cities of Judah. 16 I will utter My judgments Against them concerning all their wickedness, Because they have forsaken Me, Burned incense to other gods, And worshiped the works of their own hands.

[Terral]

Dee Dee, Eschaton:
Dee Dee >> Hey Eschaton - for some of your points I had already addressed them in the commentary, that is why I gave the whole link.
The substance and integrity of your work as a whole has been challenged by the evidence that you are borrowing context to change the true meaning of ‘this generation’ in Matthew 24:34. You have violated one of the basic rules of context that governs the way in which everybody is to interpret the truth of God’s Living Word. Referring people back to your corrupt commentary is not a reply to the specific points Eschaton is bringing up against your work.
Dee Dee >> You cannot quote only what Terral quoted and rebut it for that is not all that I said - Terral chose different points for what he wanted to respond to but the majority of your objections are dealt with in the commentary text (esp the "evil generation" argument)
Anyone can see that my reply is to precisely what appears on this page: http://www.preteristlist.com/docs/warrenend.html#matt2434 (http://www.preteristlist.com/docs/warrenend.html#matt2434) A person need not eat the entire fish to know it is foul, sour, spoiled and rotten to the core. Transferring another context to a phrase within a verse is one of the most dishonest forms of spreading false doctrine. A little leaven leavens the whole lump, Dee Dee. All the points in the rebuttal of Post #1 shall continue to stand, because I am right and you did borrow context from another chapter where the term phrase “houtos genea” (this generation) is used differently. Even the least among us can recognize that fact. “This Generation” (Matt. 24:34) is the one to see all those signs (Matt. 24:3-29) and will be living to see “Your coming” at the “end of the age.” Matt. 24:3. Christ disqualified Himself from knowing if those things would happen in a hundred years or 10,000 years, by what He says directly after,

“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.”
If Christ had known these things would occur in forty years, then He had only to relay that information to the Twelve. You cannot ascribe knowledge to the Son known ONLY to the Father. The interpretation that Christ is addressing the ‘generation’ living in that day is the invention of Preterists who set out to prove their case from a preconceived conclusion. That is how false doctrine comes into being in the first place.

In Christ,

Terral

[spiritmech]

Partial preterism is not a false doctrine. It may be wrong, but it is not heretical. You're overstepping your bounds on this one.

[dizzle]

Again if I have time I will be back to address you. It is not high on my priority list. I am confident in my work as it stands, and it doesn't cause me to lose any sleep that you don't agree.

[InChristAlways]

Partial preterism is not a false doctrine. It may be wrong, but it is not heretical. You're overstepping your bounds on this one.Hi SM. According to some futurists, there will be a rapture of the church before the "tribulations". This is where their doctrine is "false", as revelation shows the reaping of the elect BEFORE the wraths, but AFTER the tribulations of about 37 to 42 months. So the only True doctrine is a "prewrath" doctrine, not "pretrib". God bless.

Matthew 24:13 "But he who endures to the end shall be saved.

(NKJV) Matthew 24:26 "Therefore if they say to you, 'Look, He is in the desert!' do not go out; [or] 'Look, [He is] in the inner rooms!' do not believe 31 "And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

reve 14:[i]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.

The wrath

reve 14:19 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.

[spiritmech]

"So the only True doctrine is a "prewrath" doctrine, not "pretrib". God bless."

That's fine, but you haven't really shown why pre-trib is heresy. I don't believe pre-trib is heresy. I don't believe either pre-trib, pre-wrath, or post-trib is heresy.

Maybe you weren't trying to say it's heresy, but that it's just wrong? The pre-tribber will agree with all of the verses you quoted, so you'll need to show exactly where the tribulation happens in Revelation, who is doing it, and when it stops and becomes wrath.

I don't believe any orthodox position would disagree with the basic ideas of pre-wrath, since all positions believe in the promises that Christians will not see God's wrath. But everyone defines that differently.

So please, give us more.

Thanks,
SM

[Mickey]

The following verses prove that the "generation" of whom the Lord Jesus was speaking is in regard to the "generation" which will see all the signs leading up to His "coming in glory":

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares.For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth"(Lk.21:32-35).

There was no judgment that came upon "all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth" in AD 70!

Therefore,the words "this generation" cannot be in reference to the generation then living,but instead it can only refer to the "generation" which will see all the signs leading up to His "coming in glory".

In Christ,

Mickey

[Terral]

Hi Mickey:
Mickey >> There was no judgment that came upon "all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth" in AD 70! Therefore, the words "this generation" cannot be in reference to the generation then living, but instead it can only refer to the "generation" which will see all the signs leading up to His "coming in glory".
The truth relating to this topic is so very simple that it is beyond me how some can get this wrong. However, this debate shows us that holding onto false notions can blind folks from seeing even the most elementary things in Scripture. But also, opening the door and turning on the lights does no good if the person you are addressing is blind . . .

In Christ,

Terral

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Dee Dee, Eschaton:

The substance and integrity of your work as a whole has been challenged by the evidence that you are borrowing context to change the true meaning of ‘this generation’ in Matthew 24:34.

No, this generation means this generation. If it means the generation then living in other places then that is strong support that it means the same thing in Mt. 24:34. Unless the context, indicates utherwise. The context does not indicate otherwise. In fact the context, screams first century (and local) fulfillment.

No sir. It is the futurist who force thier interpetation and change the clear and precise meaning of "this generation".

Oh, and you have provided no evidence only assertion. You really need to work on that.

Of course that is all that I have offered in this post, but I am witholding my evidence until you produce some of your own.

You have violated one of the basic rules of context that governs the way in which everybody is to interpret the truth of God’s Living Word.

No sir. It is you who have violated context. First of all it is very ligitimate when interpreting a word or phrase to see how that word is used elswhere. So that by itself is a strong case for the preterist interpretation. However, context must ultimately be the deciding factor, and the context of Mt. 24 is overwhelmingly first century.

Referring people back to your corrupt commentary is not a reply to the specific points Eschaton is bringing up against your work.

Well, my guess is that appropriate replies are found there. And remember it was you who introduced her comentary into this thread.

Wasn't it you who delcared that you have a right to defend your position any way you see fit? Does that only apply to futurist?



Anyone can see that my reply is to precisely what appears on this page: http://www.preteristlist.com/docs/warrenend.html#matt2434 (http://www.preteristlist.com/docs/warrenend.html#matt2434) A person need not eat the entire fish to know it is foul, sour, spoiled and rotten to the core.


But it is not a reply to all that appears on the page. That is the difference that you seem unable to grasp.

Transferring another context to a phrase within a verse is one of the most dishonest forms of spreading false doctrine.

I agree. However, futurist are famous for it. However, this is not what preterist are doing. Preterist are comparing words with known meaning in one context to the same word with "uncertain" meaning in another context. That, and the context of Matthew 24 itself is a very strong point in favor of the prterist position.


A little leaven leavens the whole lump, Dee Dee. All the points in the rebuttal of Post #1 shall continue to stand, because I am right and you did borrow context from another chapter where the term phrase “houtos genea” (this generation) is used differently.

It is ligitimate to assmue that a phrase that means one think in one place, means the same thing in another place. Especially if there is no context to support a different interpretation. And there is no context in Matthew 24 to suport a futurist context.


Even the least among us can recognize that fact. “This Generation” (Matt. 24:34) is the one to see all those signs (Matt. 24:3-29) and will be living to see “Your coming” at the “end of the age.” Matt. 24:3.

Of course. But only the best among us recognize that the ones who saw the signs and the end of the age were alive in the first century.

Christ disqualified Himself from knowing if those things would happen in a hundred years or 10,000 years, by what He says directly after,

“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.”
If Christ had known these things would occur in forty years, then He had only to relay that information to the Twelve.

How many times do I have to tell you He did tell the Twelve. See Mt. 24:34. He did not tell them the day or the hour, because He did not know the day or the hour. But He did tell them that it would be Within that generation.

You cannot ascribe knowledge to the Son known ONLY to the Father.
Strawman. No one is doing this. No one said the Son knew the day or the hour. All we are saying is that he knew it would be withing the generation still living.

The interpretation that Christ is addressing the ‘generation’ living in that day is the invention of Preterists who set out to prove their case from a preconceived conclusion.

It is futurist who force thier preconceived notions onto the text. Matthew 24 is chock full of indicators that this is a first century event. Yet the futurist ignore them all. Forcing a passage that says "this generation" to mean "that generation" and "does not know the day or hour" to mean "does not have any clue whatsoever".

Give me a break.

In Christ,

:sig:

[Terral]

Faramir:
Terral Original to Dee Dee >> The substance and integrity of your work as a whole has been challenged by the evidence that you are borrowing context to change the true meaning of ‘this generation’ in Matthew 24:34.

Faramir >> No, this generation means this generation. If it means the generation then living in other places then that is strong support that it means the same thing in Mt. 24:34. Unless the context, indicates utherwise. The context does not indicate otherwise. In fact the context, screams first century (and local) fulfillment.
No sir. This is the common Preterist Blunder . . . Let’s look at the question from the disciples again:

“As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, AND of the end of the age?”
Christ then gives a laundry list of signs that would happen that lead up to “Your coming” and the “end of the age.” What are the three things to keep in mind here? 1. Christ is about to list many SIGNS. 2. They all happen in sequence to lead up to “Your coming” (Matt. 24:30) AND 3. The “End of the Age.” Shall we go through all of the signs? The most prominent imperative sign that places a restrainer on the antichrist coming (Matt. 24:15) is 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. Therefore, nothing following this verse can happen, until this part is COMPLETE. This is why Peter could recite Joel’s prophecy about the DAY OF THE LORD (Joel 2:28-32) without any fear whatsoever, even though those verses describe the events of Matthew 24:29+, because “His Spirit” still had to be poured out on “ALL MANIND” first (Joel 2:28, Acts 2:17), before the Judgment part (Acts 2:20+21). That ‘gospel of the kingdom’ never went to the whole world, so you guys are already beating a dead horse. This is another example of Preterism giving phrases their own definitions to prop up their interpretation. Anyway . . . Christ continues to give the signs of ‘Your coming’ and the ‘end of the age’ to the Disciples, until describing His coming in glory with His angels in Matt. 24:30+31. Are there any Scribes or Pharisees in the audience as He is speaking? No. The people who would be watching for the signs are the faithful, the elect and those He is now giving these warnings. He then goes on to say,

“Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; so, you too, when you see ALL these things*, recognize that He [ Christ ] is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation [ to see ALL these things* ] will not pass away until all these things take place. 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.”
Christ was forced to speak in parables and signs, because He had no idea if the generation living in that day or one ten thousand years in the future would see all these events take place. He could tell them that the generation to see the wars, famines, earthquakes, abomination of desolation, etc., would live to see “Your coming” AND the “end of the age.” Either you can see that simple truth, or you simply wish to believe otherwise. This is far too simple to require so many words . . .

In Christ,

Terral

[Mickey]

No, this generation means this generation. If it means the generation then living in other places then that is strong support that it means the same thing in Mt. 24:34. Unless the context, indicates utherwise.
The context proves that the generation that the Lord Jesus was addressing did not see the fulfillment of all the things which He prophesised.

The following verses prove that the "generation" of whom the Lord Jesus was speaking is in regard to the "generation" which will see all the signs leading up to His "coming in glory":

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares.For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth"(Lk.21:32-35).

There was no judgment that came upon "all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth" in AD 70!

Therefore,the words "this generation" cannot be in reference to the generation then living,but instead it can only refer to the "generation" which will see all the signs leading up to His "coming in glory".
It is futurist who force thier preconceived notions onto the text. Matthew 24 is chock full of indicators that this is a first century event. Yet the futurist ignore them all. Forcing a passage that says "this generation" to mean "that generation" and "does not know the day or hour" to mean "does not have any clue whatsoever".
It is the preterists who will not "believe" the Lord Jesus Christ when He reveals that the events surrounding the "end of the age" is in regard to the whole world,and not just Israel.The Lord's answer in His Olivet Discourse was in regard to the events which will happen at the "end of the age" (Mt.24:3).

Earlier,in His "parable of the tares of the field" He made it is plain as possible that the judgment then will not just be in regard to Israel:

"He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are the angels.As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this age"(Mt.13:37-40).

No matter how much Scriptual evidence the preterists are given that the events that will happen at the "end of the age" are in regard to the whole earth they just will not believe.

They put their man made ideas above what the Scriptures acually reveal.


In Chist,

Mickey

[Terral]

Mickey:
Mickey >> No matter how much Scriptural evidence the Preterists are given that the events that will happen at the "end of the age" are in regard to the whole earth they just will not believe. They put their man made ideas above what the Scriptures actually reveal.
That is the way the ‘deluding influence’ (2Thes. 2:11) works, Mickey. You need to head back up there and combine your two posts to Faramir and delete one of them. Otherwise the sheriff is going to pull you over and cite you for double posting. : 0 ). Hurry, you only have 45 mins. GL,

In Christ,

Terral

[Mickey]

Hi Mickey:

The truth relating to this topic is so very simple that it is beyond me how some can get this wrong. However, this debate shows us that holding onto false notions can blind folks from seeing even the most elementary things in Scripture. But also, opening the door and turning on the lights does no good if the person you are addressing is blind . . .

In Christ,

TerralTerral,

Yes,the preterists remind me of the Jews who the Lord described in the following verses:

"For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them"(Mt.13:15).

He spoke in parables because they could not understand.And when the Lord explained the meaning of the "parable of the tares of the field" to His disciples they understood that the events surrounding the "end of the age" would involve the whole world.But even thoough the preterists have been given the meaning of this parable they still will not believe.Their "eyes have they closed"!

In Christ,

Mickey

[Terral]

InChrist:
InChrist >> Wow Mickey. That is a bold post brother considering that zephaniah clearly talks of Judah and Jerusalem being all the earth and man. If only the Lord wouldn't have made it obvious to us but actually putting Jerusalem and Judah in there.

InChrist Quotes >> Zephaniah 1:1 The word of the LORD which came to Zephaniah the son of Cushi, the son of Gedaliah, the son of Amariah, the son of Hezekiah, in the days of Josiah the son of Amon, king of Judah. 2 " I will utterly consume everything From the face of the land," Says the LORD; 3 "I will consume man and beast; I will consume the birds of the heavens, The fish of the sea, And the stumbling blocks along with the wicked. I will cut off man from the face of the land," Says the LORD. 4 "I will stretch out My hand against Judah, And against all the inhabitants of Jerusalem. I will cut off every trace of Baal from this place, The names of the idolatrous priests with the [pagan] priests
Holy Cows, InChrist . . . Mickey’s comments are right on, and reflect the frustrations from people continuing to hold onto false doctrine when shown the truth. All we have is seeds, and God causes the growth (1Cor. 3:6+7). Judah and Jerusalem are a subset of and inclusive to ‘everything from the face of the land.’ God spells things out in places so that folks like us are not confused, but some seem to attract confusion . . . Instead of water He is going to use fire and cleanse every living thing from this planet to start new. The Old is going out in Rev. 20:11 and the New coming in Rev. 21:1+. You get these weird notions that Judah and Jerusalem = the earth and man from someplace, but only God knows from where . . .

In Christ,

Terral

[Mickey]

Wow Mickey. That is a bold post brother considering that zephaniah clearly talks of Judah and Jerusalem being all the earth and man. If only the Lord wouldn't have made it obvious to us by actually putting Jerusalem and Judah in there. Wonder what the "SIN" of Judah is? God bless.
InChristAlways,

Here is a quote of the verses from the KJV:

"I will utterly consume all things from the land,saith the Lord...I will also stretch out My hand upon Judah,and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem..."(Zeph.1:2,4).

To attempt to use these verses to say that Zephaniah is clearly talking of "Judah and Jerusalem" "being all the earth and man" only demonstrates that you will say anything,no matter how ridiculous,in order to defend the indefensible!

In the Revelation John makes it perfectly clear that the events at the "end of the age" will be in regard to the whole world:

"And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world"(Rev.13:7,8).

This is what the "third angel" says in regard to those who will worship the beast:

"And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb"(Rev.14:9,10).

And then later we see the wrath of God come to "the earth" upon those who worship the beast:

"And I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth.And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image"(Rev.16:1,2).

Ask yourself why John would speak of "all kindreds, and tongues, and nations" if he was only speaking of those who live in the land of Israel".

In Christ,

Mickey

[eschaton]

Dee Dee has done a lot of hard work on her page and I respect her for that. I don't plan to respond to all of it because I don't feel a necessity to do that. It would take me as least as long to do that as it took her to do the page.

I think some good objections have been made, and I agree with some of them.

There is one issue I would like to focus on in this post. Zacharias son of Barachias (Mat 23:35, Luke 11:51, Zec 1:1, 2Ch 24:20-22).

Who is Zacharias son of Barachias? He is a biblical prophet mentioned in Zec 1:1. I suppose there could have been another Zachirias who was killed by "this generation," but why is he grouped with Abel? There wouldn't have been another Abel. I understand that Dee Dee is saying that "this generation" is going to be held responsible for his death, but Jesus said "you killed" to those He was talking to. He wasn't just saying they were going to be held responsible for it. The only way they could have killed him is if "this generation" was in existance 500 years earlier. I believe that is the case because Jesus is talking about a faithless generation, not one that is determined by historical chronology, regardless of what the dictionaries may say.

But let's look at it a little closer. Are we told in the book of Zechariah how he was killed? Jesus said he was "killed between the temple and the altar." Perhaps Zechariah could have been killed there, or there was another son of Barachias that God forgot to tell us about in the scriptures. But let's look at what Luke said.

51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

Luke doesn't say "you killed," but he doesn't mention Barachias either. We don't know how Zechariah of the biblical book perished. We're not aware of a first century Zechariah, but there is another Zechariah in the Bible that perished in precisely the way Matthew and Luke described (2 Ch 24:20-22). He was Zechariah the son of Jehoiada.

So let's consider some options.

1. Jesus was confused
2. Matthew was confused
3. Luke was confused
4. God forgot to tell us about the first century Zechariah, or how the Zechariah of the book Zechariah died
5. God didn't offer us an explanation of this because it really doesn't matter

Of these I would vote for option 5. But then it does matter because it proves it is not the literal letter of the scripture that is important. It is the spiritual significance that is important. The "spirit" of what the gospel writers are saying is more important than the literal historicity. The spiritual quality of this generation is more important than the literal time or setting.

I was going to bring up another point, but I've run out of time.

[dizzle]

Hey eschaton you have always been cool in my book. I doubt I will get to this thread, not interested in banging my head against a wall (not you). Thanks for the props. It took me over a year to write that commentary.

[eschaton]

Hey eschaton you have always been cool in my book. I doubt I will get to this thread, not interested in banging my head against a wall (not you). Thanks for the props. It took me over a year to write that commentary.

It's not hard for me to understand how it took you so long. It took me forever just to make that little post. It's too bad I disagree with preterism so much.

[Terral]

Dee Dee:
Dee Dee >> Hey eschaton you have always been cool in my book. I doubt I will get to this thread, not interested in banging my head against a wall (not you). Thanks for the props. It took me over a year to write that commentary.
Defending your interpretations in the forum of debate can be a most difficult chore indeed. My experience from the past is that when you are in a hole, then stop digging . . . You obviously spent a great deal of time and put much effort into that body of work. The fact that you borrowed context from other chapters to define “houtos genea” is the Achilles heel of that portion of your commentary. The key is to stand inside of Matthew 24:34 to begin gathering the accurate context for the terms and phrases. The general rule is to reach to the verses above this one to find the true context, as we seek for other words and phrases that Christ used. In chapter 23 the keys were Pharisees and Scribes with His railings at them. In Matthew chapter 24 Christ uses the phrase ‘these things’ over and over again in describing the ‘signs’ of ‘His coming’ at the ‘end of the age.’ Christ spoke of the Pharisees (9) times in chapter 23. Let’s count how many times He makes references to the ‘signs’ and ‘these things,’ which was part of the Disciple’s question:

Matt 24:2 “And He said to them, "Do you not see all (these things)? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down.”

Matt 24:3 “As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will (these things) happen, and what will be the (sign) of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

Matt 24:6 “You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, for [ those things* ] must take place, but that is not yet the end. (inferred but added by scholars*)”

Matt 24:8 “But all (these things) are merely the beginning of birth pangs.”

Matt 24:24 “For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great (signs) and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect.”

Matt 24:30 “And then the (sign) of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory.”

Matt 24:33 “so, you too, when you see all (these things), recognize that He is near, right at the door.”

Matt 24:34 “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all (these things) take place.”
This is Paul’s last use of neuter plural (of #3778; outos) “tauta” (#5023) in this chapter (these things). Christ’s ‘fig tree’ parable works to emphasis the importance of watching for the ‘signs’ and ‘these things’ all happening in sequential order. He went through all the trouble of detailing all the signs and speaking in parables, because He did not know the ‘day of the hour.’ Matt. 24:36. Try to step outside your forced ‘this generation’ definition for long enough to see ‘these things’ in the way many of us see them. I know this is most difficult when the mind is made up, but please try . . .

Is Christ speaking about the Pharisees and Scribes of Matthew 23? No way. Is Christ giving any inclination whatsoever that He does know ‘when’ these events will occur? Again, He just said the Son does not know (vs. 36). Christ does not use the phrase “these things” again in this chapter, after verse 34; or the word ‘sign’ after describing His coming in verse 30. Verse 34 acts as a vortex or hub for the cyclone and whirlwind of events that Christ just described above. ‘This generation’ is supposed to look up into that whirlwind and recognize all the ‘signs’ of ‘these things’ happening in this orderly fashion, then ‘they’ will know that He is ‘at the door.’ (vs. 33). Since the signs (these things) and ‘this generation’ appear together here in the same key verse(vs. 34), then we must take ‘these things’ into consideration when determining the true context and definition of the phrase “houtos genea,” or ‘this generation.’ Since Christ disqualified Himself from knowing the day or hour (vs. 36), then we must conclude that ‘this generation’ is the one to see ‘all’ the ‘signs’ of ‘these things’ happening.

Note that my method of determining the true meaning of Christ’s use of the phrase was not to prove a Futurist or Preterist interpretation. Your proposed explanation of these things could still be accurate, but IF the generation of 70 AD actually saw ‘all’ these things. Did they? Or did they not? My criticism of your work is over the method through which you derived your definition of ‘houtos genea’ only. You are not allowed to borrow context to define any term in Scripture. Your willingness to borrow context (from Matthew 11, 12, 23, etc in this case) is going to get you into trouble every single with anyone experienced in debating God’s Word. Therefore, to strengthen your work I would remove that part entirely and define the terms in a manner described above. Then work to show that the generation of 70 AD did actually see all those things; also ensuring to include the events mentioned in the other synoptic accounts. That would force me to disprove your history facts, instead of attacking your methods of determining accurate context.

In Christ,

Terral

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Terral

Your argument about "this generation" is completely circular. You say, in essence, that the term refers to those who see these signs, and we know that these signs are in the future, therefore the generation beng spoken of is a future one! it should not suprise you that the argument does not persuade anyone.

But let's look at the linguistics here. You seem to think that "this generation" can refer to a future generation. You think that because you also think that the generation being referred to is not the generation alive at the time, but the generation that would see the signs being referred to. Thus, you say that Jesus is not talking about the timing fo the events, but just that they will happen within the lifetime of an undefined future generation. OK, let's see if that's linguistically plausible.

As it stands in english, it's not plausible. If it were to be expressed in English to convey the meaning you are arguing for, it would describe the signs, and then it would refer to "that generation," namely, not this generation now, but that generation that will be alive at the time. But, you might try to argue that in Greek it can refer to a distant generation, so let's look at it a little more closely. An important word to look at is houtos, here translated "this."

As it happens, I'm writing a little dialogue between a futurist and a preterist where this very issue comes up. I'll post some of it here, so you can see why your attempt to use houtos this way is wrong. Monty is the preterist, and Gerald is the futurist.
Monty: I’m glad you could make it.

Gerald: Oh, I wouldn’t miss this! I had a great talk with my pastor last night. He pointed me to some great information about the great tribulation and that verse about it happening in “this generation.”

Great! So where were we? That’s right, we just looked at Matthew 24:34-35, and we saw that Jesus said “this generation” would not pass away until the great tribulation has taken place.

Right, and I bet you think it means that the generation Jesus was talking to would not die before it happened.

That’s right, I do think that. That’s what it looks like. In fact, when you saw it for the first time yesterday, that’s how it looked to you too, right?

Well yes. I admit that when I first saw it I thought it looked that way. But there are some verses that need to be really dug into before you get to the right meaning. It’s not always there on the surface.

OK, well what’s the right meaning for this verse then?

The meaning is that it doesn’t refer to this generation as in this generation. Instead, it refers to the generation that Jesus has been talking about already, the generation that will be in the great tribulation.

And why do you think it means that?

Well, my pastor showed me a Greek Lexicon, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, and he showed me that there are many ways of using the word “this.” The Greek word is houtos. It’s main meaning is “this one, visibly present here.”

Right, so that would mean “this generation,” in the ordinary way we use the word – this generation here.

Yeah, that’s right. But there’s a second way of using it as well that doesn’t have this meaning. It can mean “a subject immediately preceding.” So Jesus is talking about the future tribulation, and then he says “this generation” will see it – the generation that will see the tribulation! So it doesn’t refer tot hose alive in Jesus’ time after all.

OK, so it means “the generation alive at the time of the tribulation will be alive at the time of the tribulation?”

What?

Well, you just said the term “this generation” means “the generation alive at the time of the tribulation.”

Oh, OK I see what you mean. It does sound a bit strange.

It sure does. It’s like saying “The tribulation will occur in the lifetime of those who are alive at the time.”

OK, OK. Don’t rub it in. It does sound silly.

Yes, and more than that, it’s just a poor reading of Thayer’s Lexicon. As it happens, I have a copy here.

Well, I never saw that coming.

No, they never do. Now, you pastor was referring to page 466 of the Zondervan edition. But Unlike you pastor, I’m going to quote a little more from the second usage of houtos. “It refers to a subject immediately preceding, the one just named: Luke 1:32, 2:37, Jn 1:2, 6:71, 2 Tim 3:6, etc.” OK, so when the subject (in the sense of subject vs. object) has just been named previously, houtos can be used to refer to it.

OK, well this is getting kinda technical now.

Well, this will make it clear. Let’s look at just a couple of the examples Thayer gives and you’ll see what he means. I’ll use the King James version just for now because of its word for word literalness. First let’s look at John 6:71

He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

OK, now in this verse the word houtos is translated as “he.” And how do we know who “he” is?

Well that’s easy, the text points out that it is Judas.

That’s right. Judas is the subject. He is the one just named. Now let’s look at another example. Let’s pick Luke 2:36-37.

And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity; And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day.

Now in this passage, houtos is translated as “she.” How do we know who “she is?


Again, that’s easy. The text previously identifies her as Anna.

Yes, that right. Anna is the subject, the one just named. Now, here’s the important part. Let’s look at Matthew 24:33-34

So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Now, who is the generation just named?

Well…. I guess there isn’t really a generation specifically named. It's just called a generation.


That’s right, there isn’t. And if there isn’t a subject “just named,” then we’re left with Thayer’s first definition. “This generation” means “This generation now visibly present.” In fact, although the generation is not named in the above passage in Matthew 24, who are the last people specifically referred to before Jesus says “this generation?”


OK, OK, I see it already. He referred to His audience. In fact I’ll save your breath, and say that yes, I can see that He said they would be the ones who would “see all these things.”In dialogues that I write myself I can make both parties follow the argument from Scripture, and accept the logical and exegetical outcome. If only it were so easy in real life!

Glenn

[Terral]

Theonomy:
Theonomy >> Your argument about "this generation" is completely circular. You say, in essence, that the term refers to those who see these signs, and we know that these signs are in the future, therefore the generation beng spoken of is a future one! it should not suprise you that the argument does not persuade anyone.
No sir. Accurate context is derived from the verses in direct proximity to the target word or phrase. You are simply drawing a conclusion based upon your own opinion, instead of making a case for defining “houtos genea” (this generation) differently. I do not see a line forming at the door to try and shoot down my method of determining the true meaning of ‘this generation’ for Matthew 24:34. In fact, you seem to be here alone while quoting no Scripture at all.
Theonomy >> But let's look at the linguistics here. You seem to think that "this generation" can refer to a future generation. You think that because you also think that the generation being referred to is not the generation alive at the time, but the generation that would see the signs being referred to. Thus, you say that Jesus is not talking about the timing fo the events, but just that they will happen within the lifetime of an undefined future generation. OK, let's see if that's linguistically plausible.
No sir. I showed that the meaning of ‘this generation’ is connected to those who would see ‘all’ the ‘signs’ of ‘these things’ Christ just described in Matt. 24:3-29. Please ‘quote me’ and show the error of my testimony. Your unsupported opinions do not mean anything.
Theonomy >> As it stands in english, it's not plausible. If it were to be expressed in English to convey the meaning you are arguing for, it would describe the signs, and then it would refer to "that generation," namely, not this generation now, but that generation that will be alive at the time.
If frogs had wings, they would not bump their butt every time they hop. Again, these are your opinions based upon NOTHING. Bring a case based up SCRIPTURE like the one you see above in my post.
Theonomy >> But, you might try to argue that in Greek it can refer to a distant generation, so let's look at it a little more closely. An important word to look at is houtos, here translated "this."
Yes, “honoutos genea” to see these things will see the “Your coming” at the “end of the age.” Matt. 24:3. Christ’s answer MUST be interpreted in light of the QUESTION asked by the Disciples. If Christ had known the ‘day and hour’ (Which He DID NOT; Matt. 24:36), then He could have said “humon genea” or “your generation.” (homon; #5216). That is the translation the Preterists are trying to force. Since Christ did not know the ‘day or hour,’ then He could not say that by the Spirit of God.
Theonomy >> As it happens, I'm writing a little dialogue between a futurist and a preterist where this very issue comes up. I'll post some of it here, so you can see why your attempt to use houtos this way is wrong. Monty is the preterist, and Gerald is the futurist.
Post anything you like . . . Then try to build a case for the meaning of “homon genea” (Matt. 24:34) to be something other than those who actually saw ‘all’ the ‘signs’ of ‘these things.’ The Preterists here are trying to define the terms without regard to how Christ is using the phrase in this passage. They are trying to force their ‘generation living in that day’ meaning down your throat, then start you back in Matthew 24:3 to read the chapter in their context. That is simply dishonest explanation of Scripture that is self serving, and a deliberate attempt to prop up a man-made interpretation. Christ was giving ‘prophecy’ and signs of things that would happen ‘in the future.’ My work in Post 31 does not prove a futurist or preterist interpretation of the passage. If you wish to try and prove that ‘all’ the ‘signs’ of ‘these things’ were seen by ‘this generation’ living in that day, then please be my guest . . .

In Christ,

Terral

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Faramir:

No sir. This is the common Preterist Blunder . . . Let’s look at the question from the disciples again:

“As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, AND of the end of the age?”



No sir this is the common futurist blunder. Talk about taking a verse out of context. Lets actually look at the passage in context, to see what Terral left off:



1Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. 2But he answered them, "You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down."



3As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?"



Your right Terral it is all about context. The question, “When will these things take place?” Was in response to Jesus saying, “…there will not be left here on stone upon another.”



It is clear that the disciples equated the destruction of the Temple and Jesus “coming” with the ‘end of the age’.



And when was that temple destroyed? AD 70. Within one generation. Just like Jesus said.



But I will give you credit Terral. This is actually on topic and you did give some support. It is a good start.



Oh, and btw, I have several other reasons why the context of Mt. 24 demand a first century fulfillment. But I want to see if you can address this one point, before I provide any more.



Christ then gives a laundry list of signs <snip>



…but then you go on about off topic stuff. I am well aware of the signs. I am well aware that you do not believe that the signs were fulfilled, I believe they were.



However, the issue is the interpretation of “this generation” from the context. If the context means the generation then living, and the signs were not fulfilled, it would be disingenuous to say that it must mean something else. Plus as theonomy (:hi: theo. Long time no see) pointed out. This is circular. This generation means, a future generation because the signs have not been fulfilled, therefore the generation must be future.



I on the other hand, let the context tell me what ‘this generation meant”. I then tested to see if all the signs had been fulfilled (Test all things, hold on to the good.). You know what. They all were. But that is off topic. Let us stick to context of Mt. 24, shall we.



<snip> Terral just repeats the same assertions he has asserted over and over again. <snip>



Hint: No one is persuaded by your assertion. No one really cares about your assertion. We’ve heard it all before. We want to know your reasoning (if any).



Is that too much to ask?



:sig:

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Dee Dee:

Defending your interpretations in the forum of debate can be a most difficult chore indeed. My experience from the past is that when you are in a hole, then stop digging . . .


Does anyone else see the irony in this?

:lmbo: :rofl:

Hey Terral, you might want to practice what you preach. Or is that why you stopped posting in the "For those who care, is preterism in the extreme minority" thread?

But then you did dig that hole deepeer and deeper.

Hint: Stopped digging sooner.

:rofl:

You obviously spent a great deal of time and put much effort into that body of work. The fact that you borrowed context from other chapters to define “houtos genea” is the Achilles heel of that portion of your commentary. The key is to stand inside of Matthew 24:34 to begin gathering the accurate context for the terms and phrases.

I agree, but the context demands a first century fulfillment. the "houtos genea" used to mean the generation then living everywhere else in the NT is strong support for the preterist interpretation, but the context is what really gives it strength.


In Christ,


:sig:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Terral, you last post was a smoke screen. In my post I showed you via exegesis why in matthew 24 the phrase "houtos genea" referred to the generation Jesus was speaking to. You claim that you showed otherwise, but in fact you never did. All you did was hihlight numerous references to the signs Jesus was talking about. And then you respond by saying that I'm only giving my opinion without any Scripture? Come off it, I think that's just a way of saying "oh heck, my claim has been annihilated, now what do I do! I know! I'll just assert that he hasn't given any evidence yet!"

Your claims about "this generation" have been entirely rebutted now. If I were you Terral, I'd stop digging.

Glenn

[Terral]

Glenn:
Glenn >> Terral, you last post was a smoke screen.
No sir. My last post to you (Post #33) was a reply to assertions you made without using any Scriptural references whatsoever.
Glenn >> In my post I showed you via exegesis why in matthew 24 the phrase "houtos genea" referred to the generation Jesus was speaking to. You claim that you showed otherwise, but in fact you never did.
When referring to a post on this thread, then please use (Post #??) to avoid confusion. Post #32 contains unsupported statements to prop up judgments based upon your own opinions.
Glenn >> All you did was hihlight numerous references to the signs Jesus was talking about. And then you respond by saying that I'm only giving my opinion without any Scripture? Come off it, I think that's just a way of saying "oh heck, my claim has been annihilated, now what do I do! I know! I'll just assert that he hasn't given any evidence yet!"
No sir. You are persuaded more by your own opinions than the third party readers, and your judgments here are also unsupported and meaningless. I cannot even write on the topic of this thread, because once again you bring no points supported by anything in Scripture.
Glenn >> Your claims about "this generation" have been entirely rebutted now. If I were you Terral, I'd stop digging.
Heh. Okie. Keep on believing that . . .

In Christ,

Terral

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Glenn:

No sir. My last post to you (Post #33) was a reply to assertions you made without using any Scriptural references whatsoever.Then you need to re-read what you are responding to. Post #32 contained numerous scriptural proofs which show that you are using "houtos" in an unnatural way.
When referring to a post on this thread, then please use (Post #??) to avoid confusion. Post #32 contains unsupported statements to prop up judgments based upon your own opinions. Do you consider Scripture proofs to be my unsupported opinion? I'm shocked. Please have another look at the dialogue I posted, which contains lexical and scripture proofs that refute your use of "houtos."

No sir. You are persuaded more by your own opinions than the third party readers, and your judgments here are also unsupported and meaningless. I cannot even write on the topic of this thread, because once again you bring no points supported by anything in Scripture. I am confused as to why you think lexical references and Scrpture proofs are only my own opinion. I have to say that like your last post to me, this too is a smoke screen, You're just closing your eyes when I have posted evidence, and you're pretending it's not there. Well everyone else saw it, and now that you're ignoring it you give the impression that your theory is dear to you, but Scripture is not, since you ignore Scripture proofs, as wells as lexical evidence.

Heh. Okie. Keep on believing that . . . I will keep believing the Scripture. You can keep your pet theories that you so carefully protect from evidence.


Glenn

[Terral]

Glenn:
Glenn >> Then you need to re-read what you are responding to. Post #32 contained numerous scriptural proofs which show that you are using "houtos" in an unnatural way.
Post 32 >> Terral, Your argument about "this generation" is completely circular. You say, in essence, that the term refers to those who see these signs, and we know that these signs are in the future, therefore the generation beng spoken of is a future one! it should not suprise you that the argument does not persuade anyone.

But let's look at the linguistics here. You seem to think that "this generation" can refer to a future generation. You think that because you also think that the generation being referred to is not the generation alive at the time, but the generation that would see the signs being referred to. Thus, you say that Jesus is not talking about the timing fo the events, but just that they will happen within the lifetime of an undefined future generation. OK, let's see if that's linguistically plausible.

As it stands in english, it's not plausible. If it were to be expressed in English to convey the meaning you are arguing for, it would describe the signs, and then it would refer to "that generation," namely, not this generation now, but that generation that will be alive at the time. But, you might try to argue that in Greek it can refer to a distant generation, so let's look at it a little more closely. An important word to look at is houtos, here translated "this."

As it happens, I'm writing a little dialogue between a futurist and a preterist where this very issue comes up. I'll post some of it here, so you can see why your attempt to use houtos this way is wrong. Monty is the preterist, and Gerald is the futurist. (Snip Monte Garb)

In dialogues that I write myself I can make both parties follow the argument from Scripture, and accept the logical and exegetical outcome. If only it were so easy in real life!

Glenn
I believe you are trying to pass off your comments to Monte as being something that was addressed to me. Your third party conversations are none of my business. Cutting and pasting old conversation does not mean anything, except maybe to you. Monte is not here to defend his views. If you have a point, then make it to me.
Glenn >> Do you consider Scripture proofs to be my unsupported opinion? I'm shocked. Please have another look at the dialogue I posted, which contains lexical and scripture proofs that refute your use of "houtos."
No sir. If you have some point to make in ‘this thread,’ then please be my guest. Thus far you have not used one verse of Scripture as proof of anything here, and have done nothing but go on and on about judgments based upon your opinions. Sooner or later you will make a point that speaks to the topic of this thread, and then we shall have something to discuss.

In Christ,

Terral

[Terral]

Faramir:
Faramir >> Does anyone else see the irony in this? Hey Terral, you might want to practice what you preach. Or is that why you stopped posting in the "For those who care, is preterism in the extreme minority" thread? But then you did dig that hole deepeer and deeper. Hint: Stopped digging sooner.
Obviously you found nothing in my rebuttal of Dee Dee’s work (Post #31) to bring up in your post. Otherwise you would be attacking my argument instead of my person. What are we here to discuss on this thread again? Oh yes, “Rebuttal To Dee Dee’s “This Generation” Commentary . . . of course. Maybe I should alert the Mods that we have somebody writing off topic . . . LoL :lol:

Heh. I never used those things, but she was fitting this time. Let me put it to you this way, Faramir, I am glad you are on Dee’s side of this debate. I do not require any stone throwers using peanut gallery tactics on my side of the discussion. Do not try to Pretend with me that Preterists are in the majority here. If that were true then a percentage would be out here helping Dee defend her commentary. All of my statements in Post 31 shall continue to stand, because every word is according to the rules of sound Scriptural interpretation.

Keep up the nice work of throwing stones and proving that you guys are all out of arguments. I will be back to check on your work later . . . If I ever stop laughing . . .

In Christ,

Terral

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Glenn:


I believe you are trying to pass off your comments to Monte as being something that was addressed to me. Your third party conversations are none of my business. Cutting and pasting old conversation does not mean anything, except maybe to you. Monte is not here to defend his views. If you have a point, then make it to me.Please read more carefully. Monty does not exist. As I said, I wrote that dialogue, and it was written to demonstrate the falsehood of the view that "this generation" refers to a future generation that will see the signs, which is the view that you have expressed.
No sir. If you have some point to make in ‘this thread,’ then please be my guest. Thus far you have not used one verse of Scripture as proof of anything here, and have done nothing but go on and on about judgments based upon your opinions. Sooner or later you will make a point that speaks to the topic of this thread, and then we shall have something to discuss.This is a blatant fabrication. Every reader of this thread can see the Scriptural and lexical arguments contained in post #32. If you cannot, then it is an indictment on you. I believe you are denying that the biblical argiument is there ebcause you find yourself helpless to rebut it, preferring your own opinion over Scripture.
Glenn

[Terral]

Theonomy:
Theonomy >> This is a blatant fabrication. Every reader of this thread can see the Scriptural and lexical arguments contained in post #32. If you cannot, then it is an indictment on you. I believe you are denying that the biblical argiument is there ebcause you find yourself helpless to rebut it, preferring your own opinion over Scripture.
No sir. Please forgive, but what is the topic of this thread again? Oh, how foolish of me, "Rebuttal To Dee Dee’s "This Generation" Commentary." My points above are on the topic of Dee Dee’s Commentary, and specifically to her interpretations of Matthew 24:34. Every reader of ‘this thread’ can see you are trying to highjack this thread to Monteville. Tell you what . . . I will do you the same favor I did for Dee Dee here, and will start a brand new thread for your topic. Please allow me . . . This thread is about Dee Dee and not you. Blatant fabrication indeed . . . I have not even read that off topic material . . .

In Christ,

Terral

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Blatant fabrication indeed . . . I have not even read that off topic material . . .

In Christ,

TerralLet's get this straight. You haven't even read my post, yet on more than one occassion you have stated that the post did not contain any biblical evidence? Then you are indeed guilty of blatant fabrication!

And off topic? Hardly, the topic on which you and Dee Dee were disagreeing is whether or not "this generation" refers to the generation being spoken to, or a future egeneration that would see the signs. As we can all see, my post was precisely on that topic.

I'm still having trouble coming to terms with the fact that you never read the whole of post #32, yet you claimed twice that it contains no biblical evidence. Terral, that's just disgracefully dishonest, I really am shocked at you.

Glenn

[Amazing Rando]

Let's get this straight. You haven't even read my post, yet on more than one occassion you have stated that the post did not contain any biblical evidence? Then you are indeed guilty of blatant fabrication!

And off topic? Hardly, the topic on which you and Dee Dee were disagreeing is whether or not "this generation" refers to the generation being spoken to, or a future egeneration that would see the signs. As we can all see, my post was precisely on that topic.

I'm still having trouble coming to terms with the fact that you never read the whole of post #32, yet you claimed twice that it contains no biblical evidence. Terral, that's just disgracefully dishonest, I really am shocked at you.

Glenn

Is it any wonder nobody's sent him any pearls yet? :wink:

[Terral]

Glenn:
Glenn >> Let's get this straight. You haven't even read my post, yet on more than one occassion you have stated that the post did not contain any biblical evidence? Then you are indeed guilty of blatant fabrication!
Nothing you addressed TO ME contained any Scriptural references. The Gerald and Monty conversation have nothing whatsoever to do with the debate we are having on this thread. My rebuttal to your material is here: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45153 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45153)
Glenn >> And off topic? Hardly, the topic on which you and Dee Dee were disagreeing is whether or not "this generation" refers to the generation being spoken to, or a future generation that would see the signs. As we can all see, my post was precisely on that topic.
No sir. That is one point in this debate over her Commentary that appears here: http://www.preteristlist.com/docs/warrenend.html (http://www.preteristlist.com/docs/warrenend.html)
Glenn >> I'm still having trouble coming to terms with the fact that you never read the whole of post #32, yet you claimed twice that it contains no biblical evidence. Terral, that's just disgracefully dishonest, I really am shocked at you.
Get over it, Glenn. You are being impolite to the thread starter (me) by injecting a very long third party work, when we are here to discuss Dee Dee’s Commentary. I am happy to debate the merits of your work on the “Playing the Preterist Shell Game” Thread.

When somebody else comes onto that thread begins posting large articles for us to discuss, then perhaps you will understand what this means . . .

In Christ,

Terral

[Terral]

Rando:
Rando >> Is it any wonder nobody's sent him any pearls yet?
Heh. Pearls? I have no clue what pearls, points or skins means. I am here to debate the truth of God’s Word with folks who have different interpretations of Scripture. Dee Dee thinks I am a Dispensationalist, so she moves my posts to this room. Since most everyone disagrees with me, then we have much to discuss. : 0 ).

“If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.” Gal. 1:10.


In Christ,

Terral

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Glenn:

Nothing you addressed TO ME contained any Scriptural references.My post was addressed to you.
The Gerald and Monty conversation have nothing whatsoever to do with the debate we are having on this thread.This is false, as you can see. You attempted to use an argument to show that "this generation" refers to the future generation that will see the signs. My post, including the fictional debate, addresses and rebuts this argument of yours. So it was directly on topic.

Get over it, Glenn. You are being impolite to the thread starter (me) by injecting a very long third party work, when we are here to discuss Dee Dee’s Commentary.I am that third party, and by rebutting an argument of yours against DDW's commentary, I am defending her commentary.

You don;t like the fact that I have cut the legs off one of your argument against DDW's commentary. So you play games. First you say there are no scripture references used. Then you say you didn't even read it. Then when I point out the contradiction, you say that it wasn't written to you. You'll do anything to avoid rebuttal. My post was on topic, and it adressed one of your arguments against DDW's commentary. You are unable to rebut the argument. You should give up your theory and accept the Scriptural teaching. Should, but won't. Instead you attack the messenger.

Glenn

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Faramir:

Obviously you found nothing in my rebuttal of Dee Dee’s work (Post #31) to bring up in your post. .

Obviously you found nothing in my rebuttal of your rebbuttal of Dee Dee' work to address (post #34) or you would have addressed it. Just in case you missed it:


Faramir:

No sir. This is the common Preterist Blunder . . . Let’s look at the question from the disciples again:

“As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, AND of the end of the age?”



No sir this is the common futurist blunder. Talk about taking a verse out of context. Lets actually look at the passage in context, to see what Terral left off:



1Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. 2But he answered them, "You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down."



3As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?"



Your right Terral it is all about context. The question, “When will these things take place?” Was in response to Jesus saying, “…there will not be left here on stone upon another.”



It is clear that the disciples equated the destruction of the Temple and Jesus “coming” with the ‘end of the age’.



And when was that temple destroyed? AD 70. Within one generation. Just like Jesus said.



But I will give you credit Terral. This is actually on topic and you did give some support. It is a good start.



Oh, and btw, I have several other reasons why the context of Mt. 24 demand a first century fulfillment. But I want to see if you can address this one point, before I provide any more.

However, the issue is the interpretation of “this generation” from the context. If the context means the generation then living, and the signs were not fulfilled, it would be disingenuous to say that it must mean something else. Plus as theonomy (:hi: theo. Long time no see) pointed out. This is circular. This generation means, a future generation because the signs have not been fulfilled, therefore the generation must be future.

I on the other hand, let the context tell me what ‘this generation meant”. I then tested to see if all the signs had been fulfilled (Test all things, hold on to the good.). You know what. They all were. But that is off topic. Let us stick to context of Mt. 24, shall we.




Otherwise you would be attacking my argument instead of my person. [quote]

No sir Terral. That is your tactic. I addressed you argument and I 'attack' your style, not your person.

[quote]What are we here to discuss on this thread again? Oh yes, “Rebuttal To Dee Dee’s “This Generation” Commentary . . . of course. Maybe I should alert the Mods that we have somebody writing off topic . . . LoL :lol:

Hey Terral, you need to learn the difference between disruptive and off topic. Disruptive is when you have nothing substantive to say. Off Topic is when you have say something substantive, but it is not On Topic (hince Off Topic).

This board allows a certain level of disruptive behavior as long as there is substantive exchange as well.


Heh. I never used those things, but she was fitting this time.
Vague pronoun referese there Terral. What the heck is "those things"?

Let me put it to you this way, Faramir, I am glad you are on Dee’s side of this debate. I do not require any stone throwers using peanut gallery tactics on my side of the discussion. Do not try to Pretend with me that Preterists are in the majority here.

Look another stawman. No one ever said that preterist are the majority here. There is a big difference between minority and "extreme minority". If you would have said minority, you would have been correct. You really need to pick your words more carefully.

If that were true then a percentage would be out here helping Dee defend her commentary.
Now you are defining preterst as those who choose to defend Dee Dee. See making up more definitions. Are futurist only those who defend you. Better tell Bill the Cat and Jaltus, because they think they are futurist, but have not yet come to your aid. They think they are futurist, but can't be according to your definition. Right?

All of my statements in Post 31 shall continue to stand, because every word is according to the rules of sound Scriptural interpretation.

Wrong. I refuted them in Post #34, which you conveniently ignored. This just proves my point. You do not address the issues when your opponents rebutt your points. You either totally ignore the issues as in this case, or you ask "yeah but" questions off the topic. Just once I would like you to address my actual points (with something onther than assertions).

Keep up the nice work of throwing stones and proving that you guys are all out of arguments.

Keep up the nice work of totally ignoring my arguments (post #34) and assuming third party readers are not smart enough see that your claim that we have no arugments is just not true.

I will be back to check on your work later . . . If I ever stop laughing . . .


Maybe you need to stop laughing and start checking post #34.

In Christ,

:sig:

[Terral]

Faramir:
Faramir >> Your right Terral it is all about context. The question, “When will these things take place?” Was in response to Jesus saying, “…there will not be left here on stone upon another.” It is clear that the disciples equated the destruction of the Temple and Jesus “coming” with the ‘end of the age’. And when was that temple destroyed? AD 70. Within one generation. Just like Jesus said.
No sir. It is clear that The Disciples equated “Your Coming” with the “End of the Age.” Neither Christ nor the Twelve anticipated Israel’s rejection of the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ (Matt. 24:14) and the destruction of anything in 70 AD. Christ is describing to them the time when the need for the Temple would come to an end, at the ‘end of the age.’ He had already taught them that the Law would remain, until heaven and earth pass away:

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished."
We know that this is the ‘true context’ in which Christ was teaching the Twelve in Matthew 24, because He used the same phrase:

"Truly I say to you, this generation [ seeing all these signs ] will not pass away until all these things take place. 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."
Therefore, Christ’s teaching is being given in the context that heaven and earth is going to pass away at the ‘end of the age.’ We know this is true, because the ‘signs’ of ‘these things’ He describes in the discourse are ‘global’ and affect the ‘whole world.’ You are Pretending that Christ is standing outside the Temple giving this teaching, when He is sitting with the Twelve across the Valley and the spot where His feet will again touch the ground at His coming.

“Then the LORD will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle. In that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north* and the other half toward the south. You will flee by the valley of My mountains, for the valley of the mountains will reach to Azel; yes, you will flee just as you fled before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the LORD, my God, will come, and all the holy ones with Him! In that day there will be no light; the luminaries will dwindle. For it will be a unique day which is known to the LORD, neither day nor night, but it will come about that at evening time there will be light.”
This is the time Christ is describing with the ‘end of the age’ and no stone being left upon the other. Zechariah is describing the transition from Matthew 24:30+31 to the coming of the ‘new heavens and new earth’ in Revelation 21:1+.

“I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb. The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it. In the daytime (for there will be no night there) its gates will never be closed.”
Christ and the Twelve were sitting at the Mount of Olives looking back to the west at the Temple site from across the KidronValley. Go and take a look at this site ( http://home.regent.edu/ruthven/zech14-4.html (http://home.regent.edu/ruthven/zech14-4.html) ) and note the fault like that bisects the Mount of Olives where Christ and the Twelve were sitting. You can see that the place where the Temple shall be restored (Elijah coming to restore all things: Matt. 17:10+11) will be moved to the north* in that day.
Terral Original >> Christ then gives a laundry list of signs <snip>

Faramir >> …but then you go on about off topic stuff. I am well aware of the signs. I am well aware that you do not believe that the signs were fulfilled, I believe they were.
Perhaps that is why you run to the Lexicon to define the terms in the phrase “houtos genea” (this generation) for Matthew 24:34, when Christ defines those terms right here as those who see ‘all’ the ‘signs’ of ‘these things.’ There is no way ‘all’ of ‘these things’ were fulfilled in 70 AD. Did the earth split apart at the Mount of Olives 2000 years ago? No. In the discourse Christ said,

“. . . and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. 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.”
Were the ‘times of the Gentiles’ fulfilled in 70 AD? No. The Roman Empire remained in power for hundreds of years after. Different empires have taken control in the aftermath of Rome (to the British and now American), but ALL were dominated by Gentiles. You are trying to localize the events of Christ’s ‘signs’ of ‘these things’ that are to happen at ‘Your coming’ at the ‘end of the age.’ “This generation” is the one to see the ‘signs’ of ‘ALL these things,’ and then to see Him ‘at the door.’ Matt. 24:33. The Preterist believes his task is to define the meaning of “this generation” for the third party reader, when Christ does that for us throughout the passage. “All These Things” (Matt. 24:34) represent ALL the signs Christ just described in the whole chapter leading up to this verse. He disqualified Himself from knowing if that generation was living in that day or 10,000 years in the future, because He did not know the day or hour. Matt. 24:36.

The Preterist shell game only works if you stand there in complete ignorance of what the rest of Scripture is saying about these ‘end of the age’ events. They want you to buy their sell job and errant definition of ‘this generation’ to change the meaning of everything in the passage about the ‘signs’ of ‘all these things,’ and how those things are described throughout the rest of the Scripture. Did you notice how my references to all these signs were snipped out of the reply and deemed ‘off topic?’ Heh. Christ’s descriptions of all the signs of these things and my references to them gets in the way of the Preterist shell game he is trying to pull.

In Christ,

Terral

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

I posed the following to Terral:



No sir this is the common futurist blunder. Talk about taking a verse out of context. Lets actually look at the passage in context, to see what Terral left off:



1Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. 2But he answered them, "You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down."
3As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?"

Your right Terral it is all about context. The question, “When will these things take place?” Was in response to Jesus saying, “…there will not be left here on stone upon another.”

It is clear that the disciples equated the destruction of the Temple and Jesus “coming” with the ‘end of the age’.

And when was that temple destroyed? AD 70. Within one generation. Just like Jesus said.



To which he responded:



Faramir:

No sir. It is clear that The Disciples equated “Your Coming” with the “End of the Age.” Neither Christ nor the Twelve anticipated Israel’s rejection of the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ (Matt. 24:14) and the destruction of anything in 70 AD. Christ is describing to them the time when the need for the Temple would come to an end, at the ‘end of the age.’ He had already taught them that the Law would remain, until heaven and earth pass away:



It is clear to me. I showed you how the disciple’s question were directly related to the temple. All you do is assert that I am wrong. The text clearly states that the disciples were asking about the destruction of the temple. Where from the text to you get concept of “need for a temple”. Jesus didn’t say, “Do you see these things. Truly I say to you there will come a time when they are no longer needed.



He said:



1Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. 2But he answered them, "You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down."



It doesn’t get much clearer than this.



Terral. When is the time coming when there is no need for the Temple? I ask because if we need one now, were really out of luck. But wasn’t the temple’s purpose to offer sacrifices to God. And doesn’t Hebrews tell us that Jesus was the once for all sacrifice superior to the temple sacrifices. I hate to tell you Terral but the need for temple has been long gone. It has not remained until heaven and earth pass away.



"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished."

We know that this is the ‘true context’ in which Christ was teaching the Twelve in Matthew 24, because He used the same phrase:

"Truly I say to you, this generation [ seeing all these signs ] will not pass away until all these things take place. 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."



Well Terral, I will give you credit. This is by far more in text support for your position than you have given thus far. We may make a competent debater out of you yet.

OK terral. You campare these three phrases:



1. “until heaven and earth pass away”

2. “this generation will not pass away until”

3. “heaven and earth will pass away”



The first one talks about the law remaining in effect until heaven and earth pass away. What does that have to do with the end of the age? End of the world? Yes. End of the age? Not necessarily. What I would like for you to do is to show me how they are connected.



The second and third phrases are in back to back verses (the second being the topic of this thread. Great way to stay on topic :thumb: ). This is IMHO a much stronger case for comparison than the Mt. 5 comparison. This is the kind of argument I have been looking for. Thanks. This is the first time that I’ve actually had to think for an answer and do a little research. Which is great. I love studying especially studying scripture. I want you to challenge me. Keep up the good work.



Lets look at v. 35 again:



Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.



What is the meaning of this verse. If all Jesus wanted to say was “Heaven and earth pass will pass away” Why did He need to add, “but my words will not pass away”? This verse is clearly about the eternal value of Jesus words.



Of course that is only half the