Classic Question For Preterists [Archive]

View Full Version : Classic Question For Preterists

Terral

January 12th 2005, 01:19 AM

Greetings:

“Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. 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. 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 was given to know the events leading up to “Your coming” and the “End of the Age,” which He describes to the Twelve through His discourse down through verse 29. He then describes His coming in glory with His angels (vs. 30+31) knowing everything about ‘what’ would happen, but having no clue about ‘when’ these things would take place. He then began speaking to the Twelve in a parable of the fig tree, after instructing them to ‘learn’ it.

“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 [ this generation ] see all these things [ Matt. 24:3-29 ], recognize that He is near [ Your coming ], right at the door [ Matt. 24:30 ]. Truly I say to you, this generation [ seeing all these signs ] will not pass away until all these things [ Matt. 24:3-31] take place. Heaven and earth will pass away [ at the end of the age ], 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 instructs the Twelve that ‘this generation’ to see all these things would recognize that He is at the door, and see “Your coming” and the “End of the Age.” Christ had no way of knowing if He was addressing “your generation,” when speaking to the Twelve, which is why He spoke in signs and parables. We are here to discuss the reasons why you believe “this generation” should be defined as anything other than the one living to see ‘all’ these things at the still future ‘end of the age.’

In Christ,

Terral

Chief of Staff Lizard

January 12th 2005, 12:48 PM

Gee Terral!!!! How many times do we have to answer the same question???

This has already been address with you on at least three other threads.

Here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44995&page=1&pp=16),here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43767) and here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44954).

Why didn’t you bring up one of your other questions? :sigh:

However, since I told you I would answer any question. I will answer this question yet again. :sigh:

However, my response will be brief. If any third party reader would like an in depth view of my position they can check out the other threads. No need to rehash the same old arguments that Terral never addresses anyway.

Greetings:

“Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. 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. 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 was given to know the events leading up to “Your coming” and the “End of the Age,” which He describes to the Twelve through His discourse down through verse 29. He then describes His coming in glory with His angels (vs. 30+31) knowing everything about ‘what’ would happen, but having no clue about ‘when’ these things would take place.

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?"

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

Jesus told His disciples that you (second person plural) need to watch for the signs, not them (third person plural). In other words the people who needed to watch for the signs were present when Jesus was speaking.

16then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17Let the one who is on the housetop not go down to take what is in his house,

Those in Judea are to flee. Why Judea, if this is a world wide tribulation. Why flee if it’s world wide. There would be no where to flee to.

Terral keeps wanting to say that v. 36:

But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son,[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/#fen-ESV-23987b)] but the Father only.

means that Jesus was clueless as to the timing of “these things”.

Terral, if you do not respond to any other point I make, please answer this question:

How does Jesus not knowing the day and the hour preclude him from knowing that it would take place within the generation?

There is a huge difference between a day and hour and a generation.

I have asked you this question at least four times (maybe five) you have “answered” it twice, but both times the answers were circular. Either answer this question or quit hanging you argument on v. 35.

He then began speaking to the Twelve in a parable of the fig tree, after instructing them to ‘learn’ it.

“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 [ this generation ] see all these things [ Matt. 24:3-29 ], recognize that He is near [ Your coming ], right at the door [ Matt. 24:30 ]. Truly I say to you, this generation [ seeing all these signs ] will not pass away until all these things [ Matt. 24:3-31] take place. Heaven and earth will pass away [ at the end of the age ], 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 instructs the Twelve that ‘this generation’ to see all these things would recognize that He is at the door, and see “Your coming” and the “End of the Age.” Christ had no way of knowing if He was addressing “your generation,” when speaking to the Twelve, which is why He spoke in signs and parables.

:sigh: Well if Jesus used parables because he had no clue, then He must have been clueless about a great many things. Not the least of which would be the nature of the Kingdom of Heaven/Kingdom of God.

How many parables start out, “The Kingdom of God is like……”? Was Jesus clueless here as well? If not, why is Jesus using parables in Mt. 24 an indication of His level of cluelessness and His other uses of parables is not.

Tell me Terral, why do you think that God incarnate was so clueless about so many things?

The answer to the parable of the fig tree is quite simple. A sign of summer being near is the fig leaves. The sign of the destruction of the temple being near is “these things”. Have you ever heard of simile?

:sig:

Bill the Cat

January 12th 2005, 02:06 PM

The answer to the parable of the fig tree is quite simple. A sign of summer being near is the fig leaves. The sign of the destruction of the temple being near is “these things”. Have you ever heard of simile?

So do you believe "the end of the age" was 70 AD?

Chief of Staff Lizard

January 12th 2005, 02:32 PM

So do you believe "the end of the age" was 70 AD? I do. But it is not necessary to the preterist interpretation.

I see that you noticed I left "end of the age" in accociation with the temple destruction. I did that intentionally. I added it before, but it is an unnecessary distraction to such a basic argument. (But if you decide to join this thread, I know the argument will be much deeper than "basic". :pray: Not that I'm begging or anything.)

Many preterist see a split in Mt. 24. I do not. Though recently I began to understand the position of the split much better. So it is possible, my position on this may change in the future.

I would be more than happy (estatic actually) to discuss the finer points as to why I think the destruction of the Temple marked the end of the age. (I actually beleive in an overlap of ages the Messianic age began no later than the crucifixion, maybe as early as the nativity, but the Temple age did not end until the temple was destroyed. The whole now not yet theme in the Gospels).

So are you going to stay, or is this a post and run?

Your brother in Christ,

:sig:

Terral

January 12th 2005, 03:29 PM

Faramir:
Faramir >> Gee Terral!!!! How many times do we have to answer the same question??? This has already been address with you on at least three other threads. Here,here and here. Why didn’t you bring up one of your other questions? However, since I told you I would answer any question. I will answer this question yet again.
One or two questions means just that. The (10 questions to Preterists) gave you a choice of often asked questions, but the powers that be have spoken. This is the classic point of division between the Preterist and those holding a future interpretation of these ‘day of the Lord’ events. I will get to the other questions in time, and you will just have to hold your horses.
Faramir >> However, my response will be brief. If any third party reader would like an in depth view of my position they can check out the other threads. No need to rehash the same old arguments that Terral never addresses anyway.
If you will think carefully for a minute, then you will realize that all of these threads eventually die and become part of the archives. The idea is to produce of series of well groomed arguments that will be convincing to the third party readers from the years ahead who are searching the archives. During their searches the ‘dates’ and matters over which threads were active during the same periods will be inconsequential. Therefore, you might want to give her your best shot. My 10 questions post would have allowed future third party readers to gain information on the Preterist Versus Futurist interpretations on a variety of assorted questions on the same thread, and search by question #. My mistake was stepping outside the box and looking ahead without properly selling my idea; live and learn . . . Looking down your post I am not seeing very much in the way of arguments and supported statements. Hopefully you did not bring a knife to a gun fight. : 0 ).
Faramir >> It is clear that the disciples equated the destruction of the Temple. And when was that temple destroyed? AD 70. Within one generation. Just like Jesus said.
No sir. That is your interpretation of what you believe is going on in the mind of Christ, when Scripture records that He never mentioned the Temple throughout this discourse. Christ turned things around by asking a question of the Disciples in the following verse: “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 [ destroyed ].” Matt. 24:2. Therefore, do not begin your debate by misquoting Christ as saying “The Temple,” when He clearly asked them a question and spoke about “all these things.” It is clear that the disciples equated the destruction of all these things with “Your coming” at the “end of the age.” Christ had left the Temple back in verse one, and was on route to the Mount of Olives, where He is found sitting in verse 3. You are Pretending that He had just left the Mount of Olives and in route to the Temple between verse one and three. The mental image in Christ’s mind has nothing to do with the Romans in 70 AD, but with the fulfillment of Zechariah 14 describing the end of the age, which is the only Old Testament reference to the Mount of Olives:

“Behold, a day is coming for the LORD [ day of the Lord; 2Pet. 3:10-12 ] when the spoil taken from you will be divided among you [ Judgment; Matt. 25:29-33 ]. For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle [ Rev. 20:8+9 ], and the city will be captured [ when abomination of desolation set up ], the houses plundered, the women ravished and half of the city exiled, but the rest of the people will not be cut off from the city. Then the LORD [ in glory: Matt. 24:30, 25:31 ] will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle. In that day His feet [ Christ’s ] will stand on the Mount of Olives [ Matt. 24:3 ], which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives [ exactly where Christ is sitting ] 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.”
Christ is describing the events of Zechariah 14 being fulfilled in Matthew 24, and the Romans have nothing whatsoever to do with it. The fact is that Christ never describes the Temple being destroyed in this entire chapter. His mention to the ‘holy place’ is in reference to the ‘abomination of desolation’ being ‘set up’ described by Daniel in the final four verses of his prophetic book.

“Many will be purged, purified and refined, but the wicked will act wickedly; and none of the wicked will understand, but those who have insight will understand. From the time that the regular sacrifice is abolished and the abomination of desolation is SET UP, there will be 1,290 days. How blessed is he who keeps waiting and attains to the 1,335 days! But as for you, go your way to the end; then you will enter into rest and rise again [ last day; John 6:39-54 ] for your allotted portion at the end of the age."
Christ is not describing anything being torn down in Matthew 24:15 with the ‘abomination of desolation,’ but something being ‘set up.’ This is where the ‘man of sin’ “takes his seat in the Temple of God, displaying himself as God.” 2Thes. 2:3+4. Daniel is talking about the number of days to the ‘end’ of the age, as Christ says, “the one who endures to the end, he will be saved.” Matt. 24:13. This whole scenario makes sense when you realize that the prophecies of Revelation 12 +13 are being fulfilled right here in Matthew 24 near the ‘end of the age.’
Faramir >> Jesus told His disciples that you (second person plural) need to watch for the signs, not them (third person plural). In other words the people who needed to watch for the signs were present when Jesus was speaking.
No sir. If Christ was speaking about the Disciples seeing all these signs, then He would have said “your generation” (Matt. 24:34) instead of ‘this generation.’ There also would have been no need to speak to them in the parable of the fig tree.

“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 [ this generation ] see all these things [ Matt. 24:3-29 ], recognize that He is near [ Your coming ], right at the door [ Matt. 24:30 ]. Truly I say to you, this generation [ seeing all these signs ] will not pass away until all these things [ Matt. 24:3-31] take place. Heaven and earth will pass away [ at the end of the age ], 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.”
Since ‘the Father alone’ knows ‘when’ these things takes place, then Christ had to teach them of the signs through this parable. The generation to see ‘all these things’ will see Him ‘at the door’ (vs. 33) and the ‘end of the age.’ Your argument is self defeating, because none of these Disciples gave written testimony of ever witnessing any of these ‘end of the age’ events. Do you expect us to believe that these Disciples personally witnessed the fulfillment of Matthew 24 and failed to write any of it down? Our canonized Epistles were selected from many letters of that era, but NONE of them contain descriptions of the events of Matthew 24 being fulfilled. Your attempt to use circular reasoning in this interpretation has come full circle to bite you on the backside, and you most likely do not even understand the significance of my point.
Faramir >> Those in Judea are to flee. Why Judea, if this is a world wide tribulation. Why flee if it’s world wide. There would be no where to flee to.
Your argument does not mean anything. Christ is describing the beast coming to set up the ‘abomination of desolation’ (Matt. 24:15) in this same sentence! Jerusalem is the place where the restored (Ezekiel’s) Temple of God (2Thes. 2:4) is located and where the great deception of the entire world will occur. Christ is saying that when you see the ‘man of sin’ taking his seat in the holy place (2Thes. 2:3+4), then get your bones out of Judea! The beast is going to pursue them, as he does everyone who has believed the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ (Matt. 24:14) that has gone to the ‘whole world.’ However, he is using those who have accepted the mark of the beast to persecute those who believe and refuse his mark. Every believer in that day will be on the run from the domination and destruction of the beast. This is the opposing scenario to Christ taking His throne in New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:1:+). Therefore, do not pretend there is no place to flee and hide from the beast.
Faramir >> Terral keeps wanting to say that v. 36: Mt. 24:36 ESV But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son,but the Father only. means that Jesus was clueless as to the timing of “these things”. Terral, if you do not respond to any other point I make, please answer this question: How does Jesus not knowing the day and the hour preclude him from knowing that it would take place within the generation? There is a huge difference between a day and hour and a generation.
Are you being serious? Christ had to know ‘when’ these things come to pass in order to know He was addressing the generation in the first place. You are giving Him the knowledge of ‘when’ and Pretending that He is addressing “your generation” (of the Disciples), to then ask me to refute your supposition. Christ had no clue about ‘when’ any of these things take place, because all of this is fulfilled during the ‘day of the Lord.’ He is describing the final events of the last years of the ‘thousand years’ (2Pet. 3:8, Rev. 20:5) ‘day of the Lord’ (2Pet. 3:10) described throughout the Old and New Testaments. This is the short time that Satan is loosed from his prison (Rev. 20:7) at the very ‘end’ of the thousand years. That is why Zechariah (14) is showing Christ’s feet touching the ground on the Mount of Olives just prior to the fulfillment of Rev. 21+22. (Zechariah 14:5-21). Christ has no idea of when those things occur, because ‘the Father Alone’ knows when the ‘day of the Lord’ is going to BEGIN.

“Now as to the times and the epochs, brethren, you have no need of anything to be written to you. For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night.”
Christ told the Twelve the same thing in Matthew 24:

“Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming. But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into. For this reason you also must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will.”
Your supposition is that Christ was leading the Disciples into believing that ‘they’ were living in the generation that would see all these signs. If so, then they ‘would’ know which day your Lord is coming. Christ has removed Himself from knowing ‘when’ any of these things will occur many times throughout this discourse. Without the knowledge of ‘when’ the ‘day of the Lord’ BEGINS, He could not know if these Disciples were ‘the generation’ to see these signs, or if He was addressing one living 10,000 years in the future. “This generation” is simply ‘you’ that see ‘all these things’ will see Him ‘at the door.’ Matt. 24:33.
Faramir >> I have asked you this question at least four times (maybe five) you have “answered” it twice, but both times the answers were circular. Either answer this question or quit hanging you argument on v. 35.
In other words, stop using accurate context to determine the true meaning of these terms. You want me to run to Lexicons and Preterist commentaries, or back to Matthew 23 to determine who ‘this generation’ might be. No sir. Christ tells us who ‘this generation’ is right here in this passage. You are the one who has a distorted and errant interpretation that was created the moment you inserted your own definition of ‘this generation.’ BTW, my arguments are being made to the third party reader who is more convinced by supported statements based upon the Word of God than your fantasies.
Terral Original >> Christ instructs the Twelve that ‘this generation’ to see all these things would recognize that He is at the door, and see “Your coming” and the “End of the Age.” Christ had no way of knowing if He was addressing “your generation,” when speaking to the Twelve, which is why He spoke in signs and parables.

Faramir >> Well if Jesus used parables because he had no clue, then He must have been clueless about a great many things. Not the least of which would be the nature of the Kingdom of Heaven/Kingdom of God. How many parables start out, “The Kingdom of God is like……”? Was Jesus clueless here as well? If not, why is Jesus using parables in Mt. 24 an indication of His level of cluelessness and His other uses of parables is not.
Once again you are comparing apples to oranges. Christ had the need to teach the Disciples in signs and parables in Matthew 24, because He did not know ‘when’ any of that would happen. He taught in signs in Matthew 13 for a different reason entirely, which He explains:

“And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” Jesus answered them, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him. [ Judgment: Matt. 25:29-33 ] Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.”
Christ is teaching ‘what’ is going to happen at the end of the age without regard to these things coming to pass within any ‘generation.’ We know He is talking about the ‘end of the age, because He says so in these parables.

“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a dragnet cast into the sea, and gathering fish [ Matt. 24:31 ] of every kind; and when it was filled, they drew it up on the beach; and they sat down and gathered the good fish into containers, but the bad they threw away. So it will be at the end of the age [ at His coming in glory: Matt. 24:30+31, 25:31-33 ]; the angels will come forth and take out the wicked from among the righteous, and will throw them into the furnace of fire [ Judgment: Matt. 25:31-33 ]; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Again, Christ had to teach the Disciples in parables in Matthew 24 about the signs, because He had no idea when the ‘day of the Lord’ was going to begin. He knows everything about ‘what’ will happen,’ but nobody knows when, but ‘the Father Alone’ (Matt. 24:36).
Faramir >> Tell me Terral, why do you think that God incarnate was so clueless about so many things?
Jesus Christ is the Son of God (John 1:34), and Lord, and God raised Him from the dead (Rom. 10:9). There is one God and one Mediator between God and men. 1Tim. 2:5. God as in Christ reconciling us to Himself (2Cor. 5:19), and the fullness of Deity dwells ‘in Him’ in bodily form. Col. 2:9. However, the ‘times and epochs’ are things relating to what “The Father has fixed by His own authority.” Acts 1:7. You cannot implant the knowledge of ‘when’ these things occur into the mind of the Son without altering the true context and message of Scripture.

In Christ,

Terral

Bill the Cat

January 12th 2005, 03:37 PM

I do. But it is not necessary to the preterist interpretation.

Actually, Rev. Brian Schwertly follows your line of thought (Although Dee Dee disagrees and thinks I am misrepresenting him)

I see that you noticed I left "end of the age" in accociation with the temple destruction. I did that intentionally. I added it before, but it is an unnecessary distraction to such a basic argument. (But if you decide to join this thread, I know the argument will be much deeper than "basic". :pray: Not that I'm begging or anything.)

Actually it is an integral part of the Olivette discussion because of the way Matthew uses the exact phrase earlier in his book in Ch 13.

Many preterist see a split in Mt. 24. I do not. Though recently I began to understand the position of the split much better. So it is possible, my position on this may change in the future.

Good to see you are swayable... might just return you to the light side of the force!! :poke:

I would be more than happy (estatic actually) to discuss the finer points as to why I think the destruction of the Temple marked the end of the age. (I actually beleive in an overlap of ages the Messianic age began no later than the crucifixion, maybe as early as the nativity, but the Temple age did not end until the temple was destroyed. The whole now not yet theme in the Gospels).

:hrm: that sounds almost amill...

OK, I'll be brief though...kind of.

Matthew 13
36 Then He left the crowds and went into the house And His disciples came to Him and said, "Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field."

37 And He said, "The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man,

38 and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one;

39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels.

40 "So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age.

41 "The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness,

42 and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

43 "Then THE RIGHTEOUS WILL SHINE FORTH AS THE SUN in the kingdom of their Father He who has ears, let him hear.

The end of the age is when the wicked are gathered and tossed into the eternal fire. This is a clear reference to the final judgement of Rev. 20 IMHO.

So are you going to stay, or is this a post and run?

Actually, this is one that I really wanted to discuss, as the wrestlefest fizzled and I never got a really good answer (no offense Dee Dee) to how Matthew could use the same term "end of the age" and mean 2 entirely different events. :nsm:

Your brother in Christ,

:sig:

Always man! :btc3:

Chief of Staff Lizard

January 12th 2005, 05:18 PM

Faramir:

One or two questions means just that. The (10 questions to Preterists) gave you a choice of often asked questions, but the powers that be have spoken. This is the classic point of division between the Preterist and those holding a future interpretation of these ‘day of the Lord’ events. I will get to the other questions in time, and you will just have to hold your horses.

My complaint is that we have several threads on this topic already. If the goal is to have a well rounded sample, then I would rather address the other questions. But the choice is yours to start a thread on whatever topic you want. :shrug:

No sir. That is your interpretation of what you believe is going on in the mind of Christ, when Scripture records that He never mentioned the Temple throughout this discourse.

Only if you rip out the first three verses:

“Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. 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. 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?”[/quote]Christ turned things around by asking a question of the Disciples in the following verse: “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 [ destroyed ].”
I'm sorry but that is scripture twisting plain and simple.

The disciples were talking about the the buildings of the temple. The very next line is "Do you not see all these things?"

You realize don't you that the word translated "these things" is houtos. We've been over again and again how tht houtos by itself is reffering back to the last object spoken of. Which in this case is the buildings of the temple.

Houtos coupled with a noun means the thing nearest or at hand. As in this generation or "houtos generea" is refereing to the current generation.

The way you translate houtos is exaclty oposite of accepted scholarship. Plus it is illogical.

In verse 2 houtos is not associated with any noun. Yet you say it does not refer back to the buildings of the temple. What in the world does "these things" refer to, and how in the world did you arrive at this conclusion?

By the way. You never did give me your Greek credentials, did you?

Matt. 24:2. Therefore, do not begin your debate by misquoting Christ as saying “The Temple,” when He clearly asked them a question and spoke about “all these things.”

Thes things is the temple a first year Greek student could tell you that. I know I was a first year Greek student.

It is clear that the disciples equated the destruction of all these things with “Your coming” at the “end of the age.”

No what is clear to anyone with a basic understanding of Greek, and without an interpretation to force on the text, is the houtos in v. two is refering to the temple buildings. There is nothing else in the text for it to refer back to.

Christ had left the Temple back in verse one, and was on route to the Mount of Olives, where He is found sitting in verse 3. You are Pretending that He had just left the Mount of Olives and in route to the Temple between verse one and three.

You are pretending that Greek language would allow for such an interpretation. Heck, the English translation does not allow for that interpretation.

You are also pretending that the parallel discourse in Luke does not exist:

5And while some were speaking of the temple, how it was adorned with noble stones and offerings, he said, 6"As for these things that you see, the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down." 7And they asked him, "Teacher, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?" [/quote]

No mention of the Mt. of Olives there. Where from the Luke text do you get 'these things' = Mt. of Olives?

But the real kicker is Mark 13:

[verse=Mark 13]1And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!" 2And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down." [/quote]

Res ipso locuitor An in case your Latin is as bad as your Greek. The thing speaks for itself.

The mental image in Christ’s mind has nothing to do with the Romans in 70 AD,

wrong
but with the fulfillment of Zechariah 14
right (but Zech. was about the Romans in AD 70)
describing the end of the age, which is the only Old Testament reference to the Mount of Olives:

If you want to discuss Zech. 14, you have already started a thread about it, to which IIRC I am the last person to post. IOW,it is your turn. I will not discuss it here in this thread.

[VERSE="Daniel 12:10-13 on the "End Of The Age""]“Many will be purged, purified and refined, but the wicked will act wickedly; and none of the wicked will understand, but those who have insight will understand. From the time that the regular sacrifice is abolished and the abomination of desolation is SET UP, there will be 1,290 days. How blessed is he who keeps waiting and attains to the 1,335 days!

Again, lets keep this thread focused. (Note of interest. I read somewhere that it was 1290 days between the first time Roman armies surrounded Jerusalem (Ref. Luke 21) and the second time and the seige lasted 45 days. 1290+45=1335. )

Christ is not describing anything being torn down in Matthew 24:15 with the ‘abomination of desolation,’ but something being ‘set up.’

WOW :bugeyes: This is the biggest strawman yet. The abomination is a sign prior to the "tearing down".

This is where the ‘man of sin’ “takes his seat in the Temple of God, displaying himself as God.” 2Thes. 2:3+4. Daniel is talking about the number of days to the ‘end’ of the age, as Christ says, “the one who endures to the end, he will be saved.” Matt. 24:13. This whole scenario makes sense when you realize that the prophecies of Revelation 12 +13 are being fulfilled right here in Matthew 24 near the ‘end of the age.’

Once again off topic.

I could just as easily say, it all makes sense when you realize the the prophecise of Revelation 12-13 were fulfilled in AD 70. But then we would be talking about Rev. 12-13. Not Mt. 24.

No sir. If Christ was speaking about the Disciples seeing all these signs, then He would have said “your generation” (Matt. 24:34) instead of ‘this generation.’

Do you really expect me to believe this? If He really meant a future generation He would have said "That generation" not "this generation"

There also would have been no need to speak to them in the parable of the fig tree.

You keep saying that like that some how makes a point. What does Jesus using a parable have to do with the meaning of this generation? I have no idea how this supports your argument.

Do you expect us to believe that these Disciples personally witnessed the fulfillment of Matthew 24 and failed to write any of it down?
I don't care what you believe. But argument from silence is not less of a fallacy because you can't believe it.

Our canonized Epistles were selected from many letters of that era, but NONE of them contain descriptions of the events of Matthew 24 being fulfilled.
Still argument from silence. The silence is deafening. Besides this is off topic. What does the text itself say?

Your attempt to use circular reasoning in this interpretation has come full circle to bite you on the backside, and you most likely do not even understand the significance of my point.

If you are going to accuse me of circular reasoning, at least have the decency to show how it is circular.

Your argument does not mean anything. Christ is describing the beast coming to set up the ‘abomination of desolation’ (Matt. 24:15) in this same sentence!
You accuse preterist of getting word definitions from other passages, you get whole words from other passages. Where in Mt. 24 is there mention of a beast???????

Terral keeps wanting to say that v. 36: Mt. 24:36 ESV But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son,but the Father only. means that Jesus was clueless as to the timing of “these things”. Terral, if you do not respond to any other point I make, please answer this question: How does Jesus not knowing the day and the hour preclude him from knowing that it would take place within the generation? There is a huge difference between a day and hour and a generation.Are you being serious? Christ had to know ‘when’ these things come to pass in order to know He was addressing the generation in the first place. You are giving Him the knowledge of ‘when’ and Pretending that He is addressing “your generation” (of the Disciples), to then ask me to refute your supposition. Christ had no clue about ‘when’ any of these things take place,

Nice try. But that dosne't really answer my question. The question is, "Why does not knowing the day or the hour" preclude Jesus from knowing the generation. You just assert that He didn't know. That is not an answer. That is an assertion.

It reminds me of talking with my five year old. I will ask her, "Is it fair, for us to do everything your way, and not let your sister do some of the things she wants?"

Her reply: "Yes"

I ask, "why"

She say, "It just is"

You response was a very long winded version of "it just is". How many times do I have to ask this question before you acually answer it?
[quote]Christ told the Twelve the same thing in Matthew 24:

[VERSE="Matthew 24:42-44 showing Christ Does Not Know "When""]“Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming. But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into. For this reason you also must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will.”
Day and hour. Not generation. There is a difference. You have yet to explain why they are not the same.

Your supposition is that Christ was leading the Disciples into believing that ‘they’ were living in the generation that would see all these signs. If so, then they ‘would’ know which day your Lord is coming. \

How in the world do you get that. It will be in your generation=knowing the day? You have taken scripture twisting to a new high.

In other words, stop using accurate context to determine the true meaning of these terms.

No sir I will continue to use accurate context to determine the true meaning of scripture. I suggest you do the same. But by admitting that my context is accurate, I guess it shows how dedicated you are to your interpretation over accuarate context.
You want me to run to Lexicons

Lexicons are great tools to use if used properly. But based on your backwards understanding of houtos, I can see why you avoid them.

and Preterist commentaries
What? Should I defend the preterist position with Tim LaHayes Revelation Unveiled. Come to think if it, it was that book that started me on the joyous jouney to preterism.

, or back to Matthew 23 to determine who ‘this generation’ might be.

Hint Matthew 24 is in the greater context of the book of Matthew. So Mt. 23 is "in context". However, preterist do not connect Mt. 23 and Mt. 24 in the way you say we do.

BTW, my arguments are being made to the third party reader who is more convinced by supported statements based upon the Word of God than your fantasies.

No wonder you got the understanding of houtos backwards. You live in bizzaro world where everything is backwards.

It is Faramr who has supported statements based on the Word of Godand Terral (or is that larreT) who is spouting fantasies.

Once again you are comparing apples to oranges. Christ had the need to teach the Disciples in signs and parables in Matthew 24, because He did not know ‘when’ any of that would happen. He taught in signs in Matthew 13 for a different reason entirely, which He explains:

You keep saying that. What do you mean He had to use parables? And even if that argument made any sense (because it dosn't) Couldn't it be argued that He had to use parables becasuse He knew the generation, but did not know the day and hour?

[VERSE="Matthew 13:10-13"]“And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” Jesus answered them, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him. [ Judgment: Matt. 25:29-33 ] Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.”
Christ is teaching ‘what’ is going to happen at the end of the age without regard to these things coming to pass within any ‘generation.’ We know He is talking about the ‘end of the age, because He says so in these parables.

Is this you explanation as to why Jesus had to use parables. :egad:

I look forward to your next response.

Your brother in Christ,

:sig:

Chief of Staff Lizard

January 12th 2005, 05:33 PM

Actually, Rev. Brian Schwertly follows your line of thought (Although Dee Dee disagrees and thinks I am misrepresenting him)

Actually it is an integral part of the Olivette discussion because of the way Matthew uses the exact phrase earlier in his book in Ch 13.
We'll see. :wink:

Good to see you are swayable... might just return you to the light side of the force!! :poke:
Swayable, not crazy!!! :wink: Remember I was on that side at one time. I know which one is the light. :emp:

:hrm: that sounds almost amill... amill postmill potatoe patato. there is very little difference between pretest postmill and optimistic amill.

OK, I'll be brief though...kind of.
You mean brief for you? :wink:

Matthew 13
36 Then He left the crowds and went into the house And His disciples came to Him and said, "Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field."

37 And He said, "The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man,

38 and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one;

39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels.

40 "So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age.

41 "The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness,

42 and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

43 "Then THE RIGHTEOUS WILL SHINE FORTH AS THE SUN in the kingdom of their Father He who has ears, let him hear.

The end of the age is when the wicked are gathered and tossed into the eternal fire. This is a clear reference to the final judgement of Rev. 20 IMHO. [/quote]
Natually I disagree. I (and IIRC JPHolding) sees Mt. 13 as something that is currently ongoing. Harvest isn't a one time event it is repeated over and over. When we die, are we not with Chist (Sheep) and are not the lost (goats) sepearted prior to the final judgment?
Actually, this is one that I really wanted to discuss, as the wrestlefest fizzled and I never got a really good answer (no offense Dee Dee) to how Matthew could use the same term "end of the age" and mean 2 entirely different events. It is late and I do not have time to go into the details, but you might want to check out JPH's site to see his take on it. And to be honest, this is not a position I have really boned up on, so it may take some time before I can give you an answer that is suitable to me. I can be sloppy with some. If I am sloppy with you, you will eat me for lunch and spit out the bones.

See you later. Thanks for all the help yesterday. (I should give you pearls for that:pearls:)

Your brother in Christ,

:sig:

:nsm:

Always man! :btc3:[/QUOTE]

Makarios

January 12th 2005, 11:19 PM

The fact is that Christ never describes the Temple being destroyed in this entire chapter.

Faramir has already answered your post thouroughly, but I have a question for you. Do you think the parallel passage in Luke describes the Roman conquest in AD 70 or not?

Luke 21:20 ¶ “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near.
Luke 21:21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains. Those who are inside the city must depart. Those who are out in the country must not enter it,
Luke 21:22 because these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written.

Terral

January 13th 2005, 12:09 AM

Terral

January 13th 2005, 01:03 AM

Makarios:

Terral Original >> The fact is that Christ never describes the Temple being destroyed in this entire chapter.

Makarios >> Faramir has already answered your post thouroughly, but I have a question for you. Do you think the parallel passage in Luke describes the Roman conquest in AD 70 or not?

Really? You may want to help him with his Greek . . . I do not believe Christ is describing anything at all to do with the Romans in 70 AD. That is all part of the Preterist delusion that plagues this place like a sickness. You need to throw away your history books and get your noses back into the Word of God and forget everything you Pretend to understand. Christ is describing the events leading up to “Your Coming” and the “End of the Age” in Matthew 24 while sitting on the very spot where He shall judge the living and the dead.

“Behold, a day is coming for the LORD [ day of the Lord; 2Pet. 3:10-12 ] when the spoil taken from you will be divided among you [ Judgment; Matt. 25:29-33 ]. For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle [ Rev. 20:8+9 ], and the city will be captured [ when abomination of desolation set up ], the houses plundered, the women ravished and half of the city exiled, but the rest of the people will not be cut off from the city. Then the LORD [ in glory: Matt. 24:30, 25:31 ] will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle. In that day His feet [ Christ’s ] will stand on the Mount of Olives [ Matt. 24:3 ], which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives [ exactly where Christ is sitting ] 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.”
Did you notice the part about the Mount of Olives splitting wide open, and half going north and the other going south? Can you speculate that the Temple site across the KidronValley might get damaged somewhat; and perhaps the WHOLE CITY TOO?! Has anybody here read what Zephaniah says about the ‘day of the Lord’ and these same ‘end of the age’ events? Let’s look how the book opens:

“The word of the LORD which came to Zephaniah son of Cushi, son of Gedaliah, son of Amariah, son of Hezekiah, in the days of Josiah son of Amon, king of Judah: I will completely remove all things From the face of the earth," declares the LORD. I will remove man and beast; I will remove the birds of the sky and the fish of the sea, and the ruins along with the wicked; And I will cut off man from the face of the earth," declares the LORD . . . Be silent before the Lord GOD! For the day of the LORD is near, For the LORD has prepared a sacrifice, He has consecrated His guests.”
When Christ says “all these things,” then He means “ALL these things.” Christ is only coming back one time in Glory with His angels. Matt. 24:30+31. That means His coming in Matthew 25:29-33 is the same coming. John shows Him on His glorious throne Judging everybody in Revelation 20:11-15.

“Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them.”
The time for playing the game is right now today for the members of the ‘body of Christ.’ Eph. 4:12. Christ is going to come for “His body” (1Cor. 1:24) and we are ‘caught up’ (1Thes. 4:17), when the day of the Lord is ‘at hand’ (2Thes. 2:2). From that moment on to the end of the age is the time for the ‘bride’ (John 3:29) to be gathered to the Lord, when Elijah comes to restore ‘all things.’ Scripture says that time lasts for ‘a thousand years’ (2Pet. 3:8, Rev. 20:5), which is the same amount of time that Satan is chained. Rev. 20:7. Is that exactly 1000 years? No. That is Scripture’s number of completion and way of saying “so long as it takes.” The restrainer (2Thes. 2:6) is the word of Prophecy and the Spirit of God who has placed imperatives within the prophecies pertaining to the ‘day of the Lord’ itself. For example: The ‘gospel of the kingdom’ (Matt. 24:14) must go to the whole world, before the ‘end will come,’ and before the ‘man of sin’ can even appear in the holy place (Matt. 24:15). There are many imperatives contained within the prophecies that must be fulfilled in a consecutive and precise manner. Otherwise your Bible is not the Word of God. These things will happen exactly as Scripture says, because God is INFINITE and He has the power to make it so. If one atom became out of alignment with the Word of His Prophecy, then He has the power to go back to the beginning and change everything so that everything shall happen according to His plan. If anything could possibly be altered even slightly, then His Word would become altered and none of us would even know. That is the power of the Infinite over the finite.

I have debated the truth of God’s Word with most every denomination you can name, and worked in churches here at home and abroad. The blindness associated with this Preterism business is something not common among the denominations. I continue to be astonished that anyone can believe for a minute that all the OT and NT prophecies concerning the day of the Lord and the end of the age are in the past. The simple fact that we are still here refutes that interpretation, but only if you are knowledgeable enough of Scripture to realize that Christ is describing ‘day of the Lord’ prophecies in Matthew 24. How you manage to dislocate that from Revelation and the coming of the new heavens and new earth is beyond me; because that is exactly where we are headed just after the ‘end of the age.’ The feeling I get from our discussions is that a portion of professing Christianity are castaways and set adrift somewhere between Matthew 24 and 70 AD; sort of “Lost In Space.” The ‘deluding influence’ (2Thes. 2:11) is very powerful and can force people into believing most anything; but to me this Preterism business is not even a good counterfeit. I am coming to believe that people who embrace this theology do so for reasons that are beyond the realm of Scripture itself. There is an abstract element there that I cannot quite see today, but it is coming into focus more and more all the time. Until that time I shall continue to be simply amazed that folks can believe this way. You may get tired of hearing the same things over and over, but there is only one truth.

In Christ,

Terral

JamesD

January 13th 2005, 01:52 AM

You may get tired of hearing the same things over and over, but there is only one truth.

Yes we are tired of hearing the same thing over and over. There is only one truth and you haven't seen it yet.

When Jesus said "all these things" would occur before that generation was over, He was talking about everything that He had been discussing from verse 4 through verse 33. This included the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ in power and glory. The disciple's question had been when will your parousia be, and in verse 34, He tells them it will happen in their generation. If the Lord's teaching on His second coming doesn't agree with our concept of it, what should we do? We need to change our concepts to line up with His teaching, not twist His words to make them fit our views. This is the Word of God, let's not twist it and distort it, let's simply submit to it.

Twist and bend the words all you like Terral. You've lost this argument in 3 threads now.

Want to do the football version of this again? :lol: Maybe hockey instead.

JamesD, you have been told two times already to check your PMs - please do so before posting further.

Makarios

January 13th 2005, 10:08 AM

Really? You may want to help him with his Greek

There is nothing wrong with his Greek. Tauta is the neuter plural accusative of houtos and is found in v.2. It refers back to the temple buildings in v.1. The idea that Christ completely changed the subject in the next verse has no basis in the text or in anyone's mind but your own.

. . . I do not believe Christ is describing anything at all to do with the Romans in 70 AD.

Do you believe the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70? Do you believe Christ ever called judgment down on this city? I noticed you conveniently avoided answering my question from Luke, where everybody but you sees this as a clear prediction of judgment upon the nation.

I continue to be astonished that anyone can believe for a minute that all the OT and NT prophecies concerning the day of the Lord and the end of the age are in the past.

You continue to astonish me with your ignorance. You claim to have studied this topic and yet you don't know the difference between partial and full preterism? One can have a preterist interpretation of Mat. 24 and still believe there are prophesies yet to be fulfilled.

The ‘deluding influence’ (2Thes. 2:11) is very powerful and can force people into believing most anything; but to me this Preterism business is not even a good counterfeit. I am coming to believe that people who embrace this theology do so for reasons that are beyond the realm of Scripture itself. There is an abstract element there that I cannot quite see today, but it is coming into focus more and more all the time. Until that time I shall continue to be simply amazed that folks can believe this way.

Here is a clue for you. I know this will come as a shock to you, so make sure you are sitting down when you read the next sentence. Ready? Here goes: some Christians actually read books and articles and consider what others have to say, even from other perspectives.

Chief of Staff Lizard

January 13th 2005, 02:54 PM

Faramir:

Terral Original: No sir. That is your interpretation of what you believe is going on in the mind of Christ, when Scripture records that He never mentioned the Temple throughout this discourse.

Only if you rip out the first three verses:

First three verses? No sir. Christ left the Temple in verse 1,

1Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple.

Left the temple. Yes. And as He was going away from the temple, when his disciples came to point out the buildings of the temple. So in verse one. We are still very near the temple.

and asked the question of the disciples about ‘all these things’ in verse 2

But 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."

No indication that they had moved very far from the temple. At the time Jesus spoke these words. None nadda. And verse 3 clearly indicates that they were not:

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?"

If Jesus said, “You see all these, do you not?” on the mount of Olives. The “As He say on the Mt. Of Olives should have come before Him saying, “do you see all these things?”. This is true in English and even more so in Greek. The only explanation for your interpretation is that you are forcing your interpretation on the text, and not the text on your interpretation.

IOW you want the text to read like this:

1Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. As he sat on the Mount of Olives But 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." , 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?"

The text just does not say that. As he sat on the Mount of Olives comes after Jesus said "You see all these things". In fact the but he answered them is clearly referring back to the Disciples talking about the temple. This is clear in Greek and English. (Maybe English isn't Terrals first language, that would explain his difficulty)

Faramir >> You realize don't you that the word translated "these things" is houtos. We've been over again and again how tht houtos by itself is reffering back to the last object spoken of. Which in this case is the buildings of the temple.

Your work here is not accurate, Faramir. Christ asked the Twelve a question here in verse 2, “blepo ou pas tauta?”
You are correct that it is not technically accurate, but that doesn’t change the fact that the same word (though different form) is used. This is not a debate about technical accuracy in Greek. But since you are such an expert in Greek, I will try to be more careful and more technical.

By the way, since we are pointing out technical errors: In another thread you said that Mt. 24:34 said genea auta when in fact it said auta genea.
No need to thank me.

Just a minor error but since you think Greek technicalities are more important than actually debating the substance of the matter I thought I would point it out to you.

“See you not all these things?” Christ is heading towards the Mount of Olives and sitting in the next verse. The question of the Twelve is given in context to what Christ is talking about here. The Twelve asked, “pote esomai tauta esomai?” Or, “when shall these things be.” ‘houtos’ is the nominative masculine plural form of ‘outos’ (#3778), as in “this generation” (Matt. 24:34). “tauta” (#5023) is ‘these things’ (Matt. 24:3) neuter plural form of ‘outos’ (#3778). The difference is that outos is attached to the noun ‘genea’ (generation) in verse 34 as the subject. In verse 2 and 3 the pronoun is being described by the adjective ‘pas’ (all), making ‘tauta’ the subject, or “all these things.” Your term ‘houtos’ does not appear in either Matthew 24:2 or 3.

You are totally correct here, I was not as technical as I could have been because I assumed that you were relatively ignorant of Greek since you never answered my Greek credentials question. I saw no need to explain that although the word in Mt. 24:2 is tauta it is the same word as auth but in the plural nominative or accusative case neuter. But that totally misses the point that they are the same word, but in different declension. They are not two totally different words any more than him he his are totally different words. In fact they are much closer than the English comparison. And since you are such an expert in Greek, you must realize this, which is why you threw these technicalities up to distract the reader from the fact that my argument (though technically incorrect) is linguistically and logically sound. Either that or you believe that Jesus and/or Matthew had horrible Greek grammar and said one thing (my interpretation) or really meant another thing (your interpretation). Sorry, Terral, but I have to go with what the text actually says, not what you think they really meant.

Faramir >> Houtos coupled with a noun means the thing nearest or at hand. As in this generation or "houtos generea" is refereing to the current generation. The way you translate houtos is exaclty oposite of accepted scholarship. Plus it is illogical.

Heh. Perhaps you mean ‘genea’ (# 1074)

Once again terral caught me in a technical error. I guess I need to be more careful with such a Greek master. But I was trying to keep it simple for the third party readers (which makarios understood, I wonder why Terral didn't?), but if Terral wants it technical, I can make it technical.

Terral is correct the accepted transliteration of genea is ‘genea’. But I hate transliterations I always get them wrong. That is why I prefer to use the actual Greek alphabet. I was using the transliterations for Terral who I assumed didn’t read Greek. Well, he sure showed me with his “expert” knowledge of Greek. In that case I will not insult your intelligence by using transliterations of Greek, but use the actual Greek instead.

(snip, more Greek technicalities where Terral was right, but fails to address the point)

Faramir >> In verse 2 houtos is not associated with any noun. Yet you say it does not refer back to the buildings of the temple. What in the world does "these things" refer to, and how in the world did you arrive at this conclusion?

Again, ‘houtos’ (#3778) does not appear Matthew 24:1-3. You have your Greek terms confused, which really does not mean anything, even if you understood the difference between the masculine and neuter forms of ‘outos.’

For such a Greek master, you seem to think that difference between the masculine and neuter forms of Greek words makes a significant difference in their meaning. They do not. And shame on someone with your expertise trying to fool ignorant third party readers into thinking otherwise. It is the same word, different tense and gender. Period. I am not near the Greek expert that you appear to be (or appear tot think you are), but I know that gender and tense do not change the meaning of the word, just the gender and the tense. And that with only one year of college level Greek. (and a course in logic)

The important thing is that the question of the Twelve (vs.3) is connected back to Christ’s question and statement in verse

But Greek grammer (English for that matter) does not allow for that. What you are suggesting is that Jesus is guilty of a “vague pronoun reference”. I prefer to think the inspired authors of scripture used proper grammar. My interpretation makes grammatical sense in Greek and English, yours makes sense in neither.

I am sorry to bore third part readers with such technical linguistic details, but Terral brought them up, so I though it only fair to address them.

By the way. You never did give me your Greek credentials, did you?

I am the guy pointing out that ‘houtos’ does not even appear in Matthew 24:1-3 to a Preterist who lives in this chapter of the Bible.

I know that tauta is the variation of the word auta but I was trying to keep it simple.(makarios got it) You pointing out that I used the wrong tense and gender does not refute my argument that it was the same word. That just clouds the issue, which is exactly what you wanted because you could not actually address the points I raised.

Oh, and you still haven’t given me your Greek credentials, Professor Terral.

Faramir >> These things is the temple a first year Greek student could tell you that. I know I was a first year Greek student.

Perhaps, but somehow you do not appear as the sharpest knife in the drawer today.

The fact that I used the wrong tense and gender, does not make my argument any less valid. The fact that you think it does, shows that you know less Greek than I do. (which aint much).

The point is that the gender and the tense do not matter for my argument. Therefore I did not even bother to change the tense and the gender, I was trying to keep it simple. If you knew anything about Greek, other than what you can find in an online lexicon you would know that.

You either have no formal training in Greek and thought you found an error I made, when the only error I made was keeping it simple by not confusing readers unversed in Greek that the words were the same but in a different form. Or, you do know a little Greek, but used my technical “errors” to distract the reaeders.

My guess is the latter. But until you provide your Greek credentials, I am going to assume you have more training than one year of college leval Greek. Otherwise it would be awful arrogant of you to accuse me of poor Greek, when I have more training than you do. Dr. Terral. And my guess is that I can out "technical" you with my hands tied behind my back.

But I guess that this response is so over your head, you will not respond to it at all, or totally miss what I was actually saying (once again).

Whatever the remainder of your post says does not matter. Anything you write on my threads is nothing more than junk mail. Anyone who believes you is far beyond anything I can do to help them.

Translation. Terral couldn’t find any technical erros in the remainder of my post so he just ignored it.

Well here it is again (well the highlights). I show that not even Terral could make the parallel passage to Mt. 24 in Luke and Mark match up to his interpretation:

___________________________________________________

You are also pretending that the parallel discourse in Luke does not exist:

5And while some were speaking of the temple, how it was adorned with noble stones and offerings, he said, 6"As for these things that you see, the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down." 7And they asked him, "Teacher, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?"

No mention of the Mt. of Olives there. Where from the Luke text do you get 'these things' = Mt. of Olives?

But the real kicker is Mark 13:

1And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!" 2And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down."

Res ipso locuitor
And in case your Latin is as bad as your Greek. That meand the thing speaks for itself.
__________________________________________________

Of course I can see why Terral would choose to ignore this instead of address it. And I am sure third party readers will see as well.

Oh, and Terral, I have no Latin training, but a little legal training, my latin is probably mispelled, I didn't bother to look it up. A Greek master like you would probably know that, but don't feel you need to bring it to my attention, because it is not germane to the topic.

Your brother in Christ,

:sig:

Bill the Cat

January 13th 2005, 03:40 PM

We'll see. :wink:

I always love to make you think some...

Swayable, not crazy!!! :wink: Remember I was on that side at one time. I know which one is the light. :emp:

:ahem: you silly silly man you!!

amill postmill potatoe patato. there is very little difference between pretest postmill and optimistic amill.

eh, that's a fact (you're both wrong :teeth:)

You mean brief for you? :wink:

:brood: :smile: :lol: :rofl:

Natually I disagree. I (and IIRC JPHolding) sees Mt. 13 as something that is currently ongoing. Harvest isn't a one time event it is repeated over and over.

But that betrays what a harvest is, and it seems to not pay attention to the "let them grow together" comment. A harvest of wheat is a one time thing. There is no real indication from this verse that there will be multiple harvests. And if the parallels to Revelation are taken into consideration, one can't help but see the similarities.

When we die, are we not with Chist (Sheep) and are not the lost (goats) sepearted prior to the final judgment?

Yes, but that opens up a whole can of worms about the point of the final judgement. If the goats are already burning in torment in hell, why put them in the Lake of fire? It also seems to indicate, (with interpreting this verse, the separating of the sheep and goats, and each person's death) that with every person's death, there is a harvest. I don't think this parable bears that out at all. It seems to more closely match the final gathering of the saints and the judgement, especially the last verse which says

"43 "Then THE RIGHTEOUS WILL SHINE FORTH AS THE SUN in the kingdom of their Father He who has ears, let him hear."

This to me bespeaks of when the Son hands the reins to the Father at the end. :nsm: I really have to look at this more.

It is late and I do not have time to go into the details, but you might want to check out JPH's site to see his take on it.

Can you finsd a link? I'm really busy at work and home is fun (trying to get my boy potty trained

And to be honest, this is not a position I have really boned up on, so it may take some time before I can give you an answer that is suitable to me. I can be sloppy with some. If I am sloppy with you, you will eat me for lunch and spit out the bones.

Nah, I'm normally not that bad...am I? I just like to make sure you can answer why. You have every right to hold to Preterism and I respect you for being able to defend your view, even if I don't agree. In the end, you are my brother and I would take a bullet for ya man! :thumb: We have GOT to meet sometime. How close to Atlanta are you?

See you later. Thanks for all the help yesterday. (I should give you pearls for that:pearls:)

I'm waiting...:lol:

:btc2:

Terral

January 13th 2005, 04:44 PM

Faramir:
Terral Original >> Your work here is not accurate, Faramir. Christ asked the Twelve a question here in verse 2, “blepo ou pas tauta?”

Faramir >> You are correct that it is not technically accurate, but that doesn’t change the fact that the same word (though different form) is used. This is not a debate about technical accuracy in Greek. But since you are such an expert in Greek, I will try to be more careful and more technical.
The Greek has nothing to do with this case at all, which is the point I am making. The truth of what Christ is saying is understandable from our English translations. So get off of Lexicon Avenue and all her alleys and side streets, and get back on the topic!
Faramir >> By the way, since we are pointing out technical errors: In another thread you said that Mt. 24:34 said genea auta when in fact it said auta genea. No need to thank me.
Holy Cows . . . If I ever said such a thing, then you would be busting me on it. The Greek of Matthew 24:34 says “houtos genea,” as everybody here already understands to be ‘this generation.’ You are only making yourself look more the fool by going on over this manner. When finding yourself in a hole, then stop digging . . . (Greek nonsense, snip).
Terral Original >> “See you not all these things?” Christ is heading towards the Mount of Olives and sitting in the next verse. The question of the Twelve is given in context to what Christ is talking about here. The Twelve asked, “pote esomai tauta esomai?” Or, “when shall these things be.” ‘houtos’ is the nominative masculine plural form of ‘outos’ (#3778), as in “this generation” (Matt. 24:34). “tauta” (#5023) is ‘these things’ (Matt. 24:3) neuter plural form of ‘outos’ (#3778). The difference is that outos is attached to the noun ‘genea’ (generation) in verse 34 as the subject. In verse 2 and 3 the pronoun is being described by the adjective ‘pas’ (all), making ‘tauta’ the subject, or “all these things.” Your term ‘houtos’ does not appear in either Matthew 24:2 or 3.

Faramir >> You are totally correct here, I was not as technical as I could have been because I assumed that you were relatively ignorant of Greek since you never answered my Greek credentials question. I saw no need to explain that although the word in Mt. 24:2 is tauta it is the same word as auth but in the plural nominative or accusative case neuter. But that totally misses the point that they are the same word, but in different declension. They are not two totally different words any more than him he his are totally different words.
Holy Molies . . . “this generation” is describing ‘one’ generation, while all (pas tauta) “ all these things” is a reference to many, and can be a reference to everything. Christ’s language is limited (singular) in verse 34, and unlimited in verse 2. Your futile exercise of attempting to force ‘houtos’ into verses 2+3 is an attempt to transform ‘all these things’ into the Temple and validated your errant assumption. I honestly believe that you were not aware of the differences in the Greek, which are not apparent at all in the English translations. If you are going to attempt the Lexicon shell game with me, then your Greek had best improve immensely; because one false move and I will show your error to everyone. Zechariah 14:3+4 shows ‘all these things’ being destroyed, as half the Mount of Olives moves to the North and the other half moves to the south in perhaps the greatest earthquake this world has ever seen. Christ is describing the events of Prophecy regarding the ‘day of the Lord’ in Matthew 24. Yes, the Temple and all the buildings and all Jerusalem shall be destroyed during that event, but the Romans of 70 AD have nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Faramir >> In fact they are much closer than the English comparison. And since you are such an expert in Greek, you must realize this, which is why you threw these technicalities up to distract the reader from the fact that my argument (though technically incorrect) is linguistically and logically sound. Either that or you believe that Jesus and/or Matthew had horrible Greek grammar and said one thing (my interpretation) or really meant another thing (your interpretation). Sorry, Terral, but I have to go with what the text actually says, not what you think they really meant.
Actually I am stunned that you actually began to present an idea through the use of a complete paragraph. No sir. I am merely pointing out to the third party reader that my understanding of the original language is better than yours; even if the answer to ‘this generation’ (vs. 34) has absolutely nothing to do with the Greek. Your original assumptions have been proven inadequate and wrong, and now perhaps we can get down to the real issues that are involved with this case. Bear in mind that half of my duty is to present my arguments in the best possible light, while the other half is to show the weakness in yours. And lastly, you are going by Faramir’s interpretation of what the Text says, and not according to Christ’s own definition of ‘my generation’ being ‘you’ who see ‘all these things.’ Vs. 33.
Faramir >> Once again terral caught me in a technical error. I guess I need to be more careful with such a Greek master. But I was trying to keep it simple for the third party readers (which makarios understood, I wonder why Terral didn't?), but if Terral wants it technical, I can make it technical.
Heh . . . You want to get technical over the Greek definitions of ‘this.’ Please . . . You already appear foolish enough. Better to keep your mouth closed about the Greek and play your shell game with the English terms.
Faramir >> Terral is correct the accepted transliteration of genea is ‘genea’. But I hate transliterations I always get them wrong. That is why I prefer to use the actual Greek alphabet. I was using the transliterations for Terral who I assumed didn’t read Greek. Well, he sure showed me with his “expert” knowledge of Greek. In that case I will not insult your intelligence by using transliterations of Greek, but use the actual Greek instead.
Holy Molies . . . You are now arguing the Greek Lexicon over reading from the original manuscripts to ascertain the true meaning of ‘this’ in this passage. Your funny business with the Greek works on the unstable and untaught, but no on old dogs like me. Save yourself more embarrassment by simply making your case in English. The hilarious thing about all this is that you honestly believe coming up with a solid excuse for altering Christ’s definition of ‘this generation’ is going to come from massaging the Greek to your advantage. Christ is describing the end time events leading up to His coming at the End of the age (vs. 3) in this discourse. Where does He describe the Temple being destroyed? NOWHERE. You are making a case for the Disciples asking Him a question about the destruction of the Temple even though that is not even a part of His answer. The Greek disagrees with you and the English of Christ’s answer disagrees even more! My Zechariah 14 argument is but icing on the cake, and another point for which you have no reply. (snip all Greek nonsense)
Faramir >> You are also pretending that the parallel discourse in Luke does not exist: (Luke 21:5-7) No mention of the Mt. of Olives there. Where from the Luke text do you get 'these things' = Mt. of Olives? But the real kicker is Mark 13: . . .
Where did you get the notion that I interpret ‘all these things’ = Mount of Olives? When the Mount of Olives is split in two (Zech. 14:3+4), then ALL these things are tumbling down. My argument is that your interpretation of ‘all these things’ = Temple is incorrect, as if what the Romans did in 70 AD is the fulfillment of Zechariah 14:3+4 when Christ returns. In fact, Christ never mentions the Temple or anything being destroyed (in Zech. 14 proportions) in Matthew 24, because that occurs after His coming (Matt. 24:30) with His angels (vs. 31). He stopped telling the story before the Mount of Olives cracks in two! Now isn’t that a real kick in the pants?! You are pointing to 70 AD (those bad Romans) for the fulfillment of Matthew 24, and I am pointing back to Zechariah 14. My case has a firm basis in Biblical fact, and yours has NONE.

In Christ,

Terral

Chief of Staff Lizard

January 13th 2005, 06:39 PM

Faramir:

The Greek has nothing to do with this case at all, which is the point I am making.

You are correct Terral. The original language was Greek, but it makes no difference what the Greek actually says. What matters is what Terral thinks it says

The English is a translation, the Greek is inspired. How can the Greek not matter????
:bugeyes:
The truth of what Christ is saying is understandable from our English translations.

Yes it is, but you can't seem to see it.

So get off of Lexicon Avenue and all her alleys and side streets, and get back on the topic!

Lexicon Avenue is Terral's way of saying, "I criticized someones Geek, even though I am clueless about Greek, and I can't really answer what they are saying". But you didn't mind pulling out that lexicon when you thought it showed errors in my argument. Did you?

Holy Cows . . . If I ever said such a thing, then you would be busting me on it. The Greek of Matthew 24:34 says “houtos genea,” as everybody here already understands to be ‘this generation.’ You are only making yourself look more the fool by going on over this manner. When finding yourself in a hole, then stop digging . . . (Greek nonsense, snip).
The Greek actualy say genera houtos, not houtos genera. Is what I meant to say. Terral has been saying houtos genera so much, I got confused.

:rofl: Terral caught me in another mistake but didn't realize it. In the Greek genea comes before houtos. That is what I meant to say. Then Terral repeats the same mistake. At least verify what the Greek says. But that would require using a lexicon.

Holy Molies . . . “this generation” is describing ‘one’ generation, while all (pas tauta) “ all these things” is a reference to many, and can be a reference to everything.

Duh!!!! Houtos is singular tauta is plural. But if you knew enough Greek to agrue inteligently about it you would know that. :sigh:
Christ’s language is limited (singular) in verse 34, and unlimited in verse 2.

Terral. Stop. Your making me hurt myself laughing. :lmbo:

Singular = 1
Pluaral = 2 or more.

I never said otherwise. What are you blathering about.

You clearly can't follow my argument like I predicted, because none of your points even come close to talking about what I was saying.

Your futile exercise of attempting to force ‘houtos’ into verses 2+3 is an attempt to transform ‘all these things’ into the Temple and validated your errant assumption.

Your futile attempt to pretend to understand my argument it transparent.

I honestly believe that you were not aware of the differences in the Greek, which are not apparent at all in the English translations.

What??? "This" is not different from "these things"??

That is about the same amount of difference between houtos and tauta.

One is singular one is plual. I failed to mention that in my first post. Big deal. I was hoping to avoide a lot of technical discusion on Greek. (Heres the operative statement) That does not change my argument.

If you are going to attempt the Lexicon shell game with me, then your Greek had best improve immensely; because one false move and I will show your error to everyone.

What error? I said houtos and tauta are the same word. They are. Different tense different gender different voice. But the same word.

I admitted that I gave the wrong tense and gender, but it does not make a difference to my argument. I saw no need to bring up something that could become I side issue. And I was right. But Terral made it a side issue anyway.

houtos/tauta must either refer to an immediate noun or a previously referred to subject. The fact that I purposfully didn't change the tense to make it easier for everyone to follow does not change that fact.

Zechariah 14:3+4 <snip>

Take it to the Zech. thread. I've been waiting almost two days for you to respond.

Actually I am stunned that you actually began to present an idea through the use of a complete paragraph.

I'm actually stunned it took a whole paragraph to refute you.

Is this exchange of jabs really necessary?

No sir. I am merely pointing out to the third party reader that my understanding of the original language is better than yours;

Hardly. If your understanding was so great, you would have known that the fact that I gave the wrong gender/tense does not negate my argument. And this is basic stuff, because I only have a basic knowledge of Greek.

You still havn't provided your Greek credentials.

even if the answer to ‘this generation’ (vs. 34) has absolutely nothing to do with the Greek. Your original assumptions have been proven inadequate and wrong, and now perhaps we can get down to the real issues that are involved with this case.

Translation. I don't know enough about Greek to know if Faramir is telling the truth or not, I don't even know what he means. So I think I will change the subject.

Bear in mind that half of my duty is to present my arguments in the best possible light, while the other half is to show the weakness in yours.

Then why are you doing the exact opposite?

And lastly, you are going by Faramir’s interpretation of what the Text says, and not according to Christ’s own definition of ‘my generation’ being ‘you’ who see ‘all these things.’ Vs. 33.

No sir. I have demonstrated that the text clearly supports a preterist interpretation. You have pointed out a technical error on my part that has no bearing on the case (probably because you lack the knowledge in Greek to know any better.)

Heh . . . You want to get technical over the Greek definitions of ‘this.’ Please . . . You already appear foolish enough.

Better to keep your mouth closed about the Greek and play your shell game with the English terms.

Translation
I am way over my head in the Greek. I sure hope Faramir goes back to the English.

I pointed out what I thought were major differences between houtos and tauta, only to have Faramir tell me that the differences are not substantial at all. I have know way of knowing if he's telling the truth or not.

Holy Molies . . . You are now arguing the Greek Lexicon over reading from the original manuscripts to ascertain the true meaning of ‘this’ in this passage.

Holy Molies...A Lexicon is tool to help people understand what the original manuscript says. Used properly, it can help interpret the text. Used improperly it help Terral look even sillier than he already appears.

Your funny business with the Greek works on the unstable and untaught, but no on old dogs like me. Save yourself more embarrassment by simply making your case in English.
This is like the third time you have asked me make my case in English. If I didn't know better, I would say that you got your hind quartes smacked in Greek and want to have nothing more to do with it.

Wait. I do know better. You are over your head in the Greek.

For those not familiar with Greek Terral made a big point out of the fact that I said houtos was the same word as tauta. The mistake would be equivelent to saying dog is the same word as dogs. In other words a short defintion of tauta is plural of houtos.

Terral showed his ignorance of Greek by jumping on that like a flea on a pot bellied pig. Now he is practically begging for me to take my arguement in English.

I don't know. I kinda like the way Greek makes Terral squirm.

The hilarious thing about all this is that you honestly believe coming up with a solid excuse for altering Christ’s definition of ‘this generation’ is going to come from massaging the Greek to your advantage.
No. I believe that the only accurate interpretation of the Greek is my interpreation.

You on the other hand have no promlem twisting the text to mean whatever fits you belifes.

Christ is describing the end time events leading up to His coming at the End of the age (vs. 3) in this discourse. Where does He describe the Temple being destroyed?

Mark 13:1-2. You have yet to address that. This is the third time I've brought it up.

You are making a case for the Disciples asking Him a question about the destruction of the Temple even though that is not even a part of His answer.

Jesus: The temple will be destroyed!!!
Disciples: When will the temple be destroyed?
Jesus: The temple will be destroyed, when the temple is destroyed.

Terral. Just becasue you use circular reasoning, that is no reason to believe our Lord should have used circular language.

The Greek disagrees with you and the English of Christ’s answer disagrees even more!
The English disagrees with you and the Greek even more.

Terral. Hint. English is only a translation. The Greek is inspired.

My Zechariah 14 argument is but icing on the cake,
Then save it for the thread of Zech. It is getting spoiled here (and trounced in that other thread)

and another point for which you have no reply. (snip all Greek nonsense)

I have responded to Zech. 14 in another thread. You have had over 24 hours to respond. I'm still waiting.

Where did you get the notion that I interpret ‘all these things’ = Mount of Olives? When the Mount of Olives is split in two (Zech. 14:3+4), then ALL these things are tumbling down. My argument is that your interpretation of ‘all these things’ = Temple is incorrect,

So Jesus was talking about some vague "all these things". Do you really think Jesus made vague pronoun reference? A gramatical faux pas in any language.

What then is "these things" referring to? And wher is it found in the text?

Your brother in Christ,

:sig:

Terral

January 13th 2005, 07:11 PM

Faramir:
Faramir >> The English is a translation, the Greek is inspired. How can the Greek not matter????
Because, your whole case is over the accurate definition of ‘this.’ We have already demonstrated that your Greek is not very good; so drop it already. Christ defines ‘this generation’ right here in ‘this’ passage.

“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 [ this generation ] see all these things [ Matt. 24:3-29 ], recognize that He is near [ Your coming ], right at the door [ Matt. 24:30 ]. Truly I say to you, this generation [ seeing all these signs ] will not pass away until all these things [ Matt. 24:3-31] take place. Heaven and earth will pass away [ at the end of the age ], 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.”
“This generation” seeing “all these things” [ Matt. 24:3-29 ] will also see Him ‘at the door’ [ Matt. 24:30]. Matt. 24:33. Christ is describing the fulfillment of Zechariah 14 throughout the discourse, and the Romans have nothing to do with it. If the Temple is rebuilt a hundred times and torn back down, Christ is still describing the ‘end of the age,’ when the Mount of Olives is split in two (Zech. 14:3+4) here in Matthew 24.

“Behold, a day is coming for the LORD [ day of the Lord; 2Pet. 3:10-12 ] when the spoil taken from you will be divided among you [ Judgment; Matt. 25:29-33 ]. For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle [ Rev. 20:8+9 ], and the city will be captured [ when abomination of desolation set up ], the houses plundered, the women ravished and half of the city exiled, but the rest of the people will not be cut off from the city. Then the LORD [ in glory: Matt. 24:30, 25:31 ] will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle. In that day His feet [ Christ’s ] will stand on the Mount of Olives [ Matt. 24:3 ], which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives [ exactly where Christ is sitting ] 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.”
All of your "The Romans Did It" lingo is off topic, because this is what the 'Bible' says.

In Christ,

Terral

Chief of Staff Lizard

January 13th 2005, 09:02 PM

Faramir:

Because, your whole case is over the accurate definition of ‘this.’ We have already demonstrated that your Greek is not very good;
We? Who is this we? Are you royalty?

Oh, that right. You get confused between singular and plural.

When I said auth was the same word in Mt. 2:2 and 2:24 you thought I had made a mistake becaue the word in Mt. 2:2 is singular and it is plural in v. 24.

And you (a pronoun that in English is both plural and sigular so take it however you wish) did not prove any such thing.

so drop it already.

You would like that wouldn't you? If you think you proved my Greek was so bad. Show me where you did that? Drive the point home. I missed it the first time.

The truth is the word auth is in v. 2, but it is in a different form. If you knew anything about Greek you would know that Greek words have dozens of forms.

Stating that tauta, a version the word auth, would be unnecessary if you really understood Greek.

What Terrill did, is they found a difference in word form and then they act as if it somehow makes me saying auth is in Mt. 24:2 is wrong.

The masculine neuter acusative form of houtos is in Mt. 24:2. That form of the word is spelled tauta

I did not clarify that, because it would confuse a person not familier with Greek, and it would be understood by someone who did.

Terral was confused. What does that tell us about them?

The rest of the post is Terral asserting that they are right.

Hey Terral. Why don't ya'll address Mk. 21:2?

Hey Terral. If ya'll want to discuss Zech. 14 why don't ya'll do it in the thread we (you and I, I am not referring to myself in the plural) started.

:sig:

Your brother in Christ,

:sig:

Chief of Staff Lizard

January 13th 2005, 09:39 PM

I always love to make you think some...
You almost always make me think or laugh. Sometimes both.

:ahem: you silly silly man you!!
:yes: Takes one to know one. :grin:

eh, that's a fact (you're both wrong :teeth:)
about many thing, yes. About eschatology? Nope. :whip:

But that betrays what a harvest is, and it seems to not pay attention to the "let them grow together" comment. A harvest of wheat is a one time thing. There is no real indication from this verse that there will be multiple harvests. And if the parallels to Revelation are taken into consideration, one can't help but see the similarities.
It is a single harvest. All mankind. I think you are making the parallel tighter than it needs to be. I don't have time to elaborate on this more. As I said earlier, I need to bone up on this passage. (So go easy on me.)

Also, while I believe that this is the accurate interpretation of the tares and wheat, I have not reached a point where I am 100%. You aske for an answer, and I am giving you the best I got at the moment.

I hope by debating with you to either strengthen my resolve on this issue or abondon it. (Not preterism, you overly optimistic dolt, just this particular interpretation of this particular passage).

Also chapter and verse for Rev please.

Yes, but that opens up a whole can of worms about the point of the final judgement. If the goats are already burning in torment in hell, why put them in the Lake of fire? At death the souls are sepearated. The final judgment comes after the resurrection and we all have ressurrected bodies. That's the difference.

It also seems to indicate, (with interpreting this verse, the separating of the sheep and goats, and each person's death) that with every person's death, there is a harvest.Dose every blade of wheat, count as one harvest?

I don't think this parable bears that out at all.
You have a right to be wrong. :poke:
It seems to more closely match the final gathering of the saints and the judgement, especially the last verse which says

"43 "Then THE RIGHTEOUS WILL SHINE FORTH AS THE SUN in the kingdom of their Father He who has ears, let him hear."

Nah.

This to me bespeaks of when the Son hands the reins to the Father at the end. :nsm: I really have to look at this more.
I do too. Maybe we can help each other. Iron sharpening iron. Even if it is preteris iron sharpening futurist iron. I would be thrilled if we both came away from this dialog with a better understanding of our respective position.

But I don't think this passage will make or break either futurism or preterism.

Can you finsd a link? I'm really busy at work and home is fun (trying to get my boy potty trained
I will get the link tomorrow. As far as your boy. Been there done that. My youngest is trained no more for me. :woohoo:

Nah, I'm normally not that bad...am I?Nah. Not if it is a subject I am confident on. I'm not as confident as I would like about this particular passage.
I just like to make sure you can answer why.
And you do. You know how to address your opponents points. Unlike.....

You have every right to hold to Preterism and I respect you for being able to defend your view, even if I don't agree. In the end, you are my brother and I would take a bullet for ya man! :thumb:Amen bro. I was a futurist once, so I can't begrudge you that either. And I would miss you if you took that bullet. :nana:

We have GOT to meet sometime. How close to Atlanta are you?
About 40 min. I work down town. If you are ever in the area PM me, and we can make arrangements.

I don't see me going near Va. any time soon, but if I do I will let you know.

I'm waiting...:lol:

Your bullet taking brother,

:sig:
:faramir:

Makarios

January 13th 2005, 11:25 PM

You are correct that it is not technically accurate...I will try to be more careful and more technical...I was not as technical as I could have been...Once again terral caught me in a technical error. I guess I need to be more careful...

Faramir, you are far more gracious than I am (to your credit), and far more than Terral deserves. It is perfectly acceptable in the literature to give the lexical form of a word when referring to it, even if the declension is different in the text. Terral is just being pedantic.

Terral

January 14th 2005, 01:24 AM

Faramir:
Faramir has it backwards, again >> When I said αυτη* was the same word in Mt. 2:2 and 2:24 you thought I had made a mistake becaue the word in Mt. 2:2 is singular and it is plural in v. 24. And you (a pronoun that in English is both plural and sigular so take it however you wish) did not prove any such thing.
You just do not know when to stop . . . “tauta” (#5023) is in the nominative* case neuter plural** form in Matt. 24:2+3. All this means is we are looking at a noun* subject and ‘many**,’ i.e., (tauta) ‘this’ = ‘these things.’ There is a subject here (nominative) and not an action verb (accusative). The term “all” (pas #3756) is connected to ‘tauta’ making the phrase “all these things.” The true meaning of this phrase depends on how the speaker is using it in the verse, sentence and passage. Christ was already referring to more than the Temple (Matt. 24:2), by asking “blepo ou tauta,” or “Do you not see these things?” He went the extra mile by adding the adjective “pas,” and said “Do you not see all these things?” Matt. 24:2. Then, when the Disciples came up to Him seated on the Mount of Olives, their question was in reference to His question, and NOT THE TEMPLE. This is the most important fact in this case that will support the evidence as we proceed to the next verse, and then to 34:24.

The walk from the Temple to the Mount of Olives is quite a hike down into the KidronValley and back up onto the Mountain. The Disciples question is NOT in the same context as Christ’s in verse 24:2. He asked if they saw ‘all these things’ (buildings, etc.), but the Twelve is asking about when ‘all these things’ take place; as in multiple events. By their question, we can deduce that they had been conversing on the way up the Mount of Olives, because they are now connecting “when will all these things [ events ] happen” AND “Your coming” AND “end of the age.” Matt. 24:3. Therefore, Christ’s answer is about ‘when all of these multiple ‘events’ take place relating to ‘His coming’ [ Matt. 24:30 ] and the ‘end of the age.’ By the time Christ gets through describing all of these ‘end of the age’ events, we are going to find ‘all these things’ appear again in verses 33 and 34. However, the context goes back to verse 3 and all these ‘events,’ and not back to verse 2 describing all the stones in all the buildings. The Preterist mistake is in trying to reach back beyond the context of the Disciples question to define the components of His answer to the Twelve. They are exchanging ‘all these things’ (events) with the stones of the Temple in Matt. 24:1+2. Before heading into verse 34, we need to stop and gather our context from the preceding verses:

“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 [ this generation ] see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door [ Matt. 24:30 ].”
Christ is teaching here in A PARABLE, as these two verses are one sentence. Ask yourself a question here: Is Christ referring to all these ‘events’ He just described starting in verse 4, or is He talking about all those stones back in verses 1+2? Christ is answering the question of the Twelve concerning all of these events, which is what He has been describing throughout the passage.

Your last mistake was in stating that outos (houtos #3778) is in the plural form here in Matt. 24:34. D’oh! Is Christ saying “these generations” or “this generation?” Right here is where your four letter form of ‘outos’ appears in the Greek Manuscripts. The plural form appears later in this verse, which you could wiggle out of my sifting of your work and pretend to be making reference, except you provided the four letter “αυτη*” in your statement above. Your statement could have been taken either way if you had said “outos.” αυτη = singular form of outos. tauta = neuter plural form of outos. You can verify here (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/5/1105675681-1031.html (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/5/1105675681-1031.html) ) for ‘tauta’ and here (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1105677356-560.html (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1105677356-560.html) ) for ‘houtos.’

Right here is where we solve the case for those seeking to do so using the Greek. Christ said, “this generation will not pass away, ‘an hoes pas tauta ginomai,’ or “until all these things take place.” Matt. 24:34. He is obviously making reference to all of the signs of ‘these things’ (events) that He just described throughout the discourse. The generation living to see the consecutive fulfillment of all those events will also see “Your coming” and the “end of the age.” What you did not see was Christ describing the Temple being destroyed, because the Mount of Olives splits in two (Zech. 14:3+4), when His feet actually touch the ground. Christ stopped telling the story when the destruction part was about to begin. The ‘abomination of desolation’ (vs. 15) is a reference to the ‘man of sin’ (2Thes. 2:3) taking his seat in the Temple and displaying himself as being God. 2Thes. 2:4. You will note that Daniel (Dan. 12:11-13) shows the ‘abomination of desolation’ being ‘set up,’ and nothing being torn down. The Preterists have this backwards also . . . (Greek garb, snip)
Faramir >> What Terrill did, is they found a difference in word form and then they act as if it somehow makes me saying αυτη is in Mt. 24:2 is wrong.
Holy Molies . . . the only place the singular exists in these target verses (2, 3, 33, 34) is in verse 34 (this generation). Every other use of ‘outos’ here is PLURAL. “these things.” Christ is referring to everything being destroyed in verse 2, but after that ‘these things’ is a reference to all these ‘events’ and signs that take place.
Faramir >> The masculine neuter acusative form of houtos is in Mt. 24:2. That form of the word is spelled ταυτα I did not clarify that, because it would confuse a person not familier with Greek, and it would be understood by someone who did. Terral was confused. What does that tell us about them?
Heh. You are a real piece of work. Hindsight is 20/20 most of the time . . .
Faramir >> Hey Terral. If ya'll want to discuss Zech. 14 why don't ya'll do it in the thread we (you and I, I am not referring to myself in the plural) started.
You cannot address Zechariah 14 here, because you know full well that this is the true context of Christ entire message to the Twelve. Everything Christ is describing in Matthew 24 is leading up to “these things” . . .

“Then the LORD [ in glory: Matt. 24:30, 25:31 ] will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle. In that day His feet [ Christ’s ] will stand on the Mount of Olives [ Matt. 24:3 ], which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives [ exactly where Christ is sitting ] 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.”

:eek: <-- Faramir sees Zech. 14 :lmbo: :lol: :lmbo:

In Christ,

Terral

Terral

January 14th 2005, 01:48 AM

Makarios:
Makarios >> Faramir, you are far more gracious than I am (to your credit), and far more than Terral deserves. It is perfectly acceptable in the literature to give the lexical form of a word when referring to it, even if the declension is different in the text. Terral is just being pedantic.
Please send your private email messages through the Private Messaging system. If Mr. Faramir wishes to base his case upon the Greek and Pretend to know what he is talking about, then he can do so using accurate terms. The Title of his post says, “Finally someone who is more ignorant of Greek than I am.”. When you go visit someone’s thread and speak with such disrespect, you had better cross all your T’s correctly.

In Christ,

Terral

Makarios

January 14th 2005, 07:58 AM

Christ was already referring to more than the Temple (Matt. 24:2), by asking “blepo ou tauta,” or “Do you not see these things?” He went the extra mile by adding the adjective “pas,” and said “Do you not see all these things?” Matt. 24:2.

The disciples were pointing out the buildings (plural) of the temple complex, that is why "these things" is plural. He is referring to more than just the temple, but the temple is included.

He asked if they saw ‘all these things’ (buildings, etc.), but the Twelve is asking about when ‘all these things’ take place; as in multiple events. By their question, we can deduce that they had been conversing on the way up the Mount of Olives, because they are now connecting “when will all these things [ events ] happen” AND “Your coming” AND “end of the age.” Matt. 24:3.

I believe you are correct here- they are connecting the the destruction of the temple with the parousia and the end of the age. In their minds these were all part of the same event. Huh, I wonder why they would think that?

(I could point out that using "is" after "the Twelve" is incorrect, it should be "are." But I won't do that because it would be hopelessly pedantic and would not at all bolster my case, and would make me seem like a real moron.)

Therefore, Christ’s answer is about ‘when all of these multiple ‘events’ take place relating to ‘His coming’ [ Matt. 24:30 ] and the ‘end of the age.’

Yes, agreed. Jesus is going to talk not only about the destruction of the temple, but of his coming and the end of the age. He will make it seem like they are all connected. That's funny- why would he do such a thing?

By the time Christ gets through describing all of these ‘end of the age’ events, we are going to find ‘all these things’ appear again in verses 33 and 34. However, the context goes back to verse 3 and all these ‘events,’ and not back to verse 2 describing all the stones in all the buildings.

Ah, but v.3 points back to v.2 and thus includes the temple. It may refer to more than the temple, but is certainly not less than the temple.

The Preterist mistake is in trying to reach back beyond the context of the Disciples question to define the components of His answer to the Twelve.

I believe that vv. 1-2 are part of the context for v.3. This can be shown in that they immediately precede it. :huh:

Christ is teaching here in A PARABLE, as these two verses are one sentence. Ask yourself a question here: Is Christ referring to all these ‘events’ He just described starting in verse 4, or is He talking about all those stones back in verses 1+2?

Yes, he is. Both.

Christ is answering the question of the Twelve concerning all of these events, which is what He has been describing throughout the passage.

Indeed. You are talking like a preterist now.

Bill the Cat

January 14th 2005, 11:07 AM

You almost always make me think or laugh. Sometimes both.

Then my job is done!! :wink:

It is a single harvest. All mankind. I think you are making the parallel tighter than it needs to be. I don't have time to elaborate on this more. As I said earlier, I need to bone up on this passage. (So go easy on me.)

I think Matthew was using the word the same way. But this is one of those issues that needs to be explored further.

Also, while I believe that this is the accurate interpretation of the tares and wheat, I have not reached a point where I am 100%. You asked for an answer, and I am giving you the best I got at the moment.

That's fine. I'm just trying to understand your position better and how, systematically, you explain the "end of the age" comments of Matthew. I think it is critical to the interpretation of the Olivette Discourse and Mathew's consistency in relation to his use of the phrase.

I hope by debating with you to either strengthen my resolve on this issue or abondon it. (Not preterism, you overly optimistic dolt, just this particular interpretation of this particular passage).

Thanks for dashing my hopes, you silly King... you and your English kinnnnnnnigits!

Also chapter and verse for Rev please.

:doh: I meant 1 Cor.15:24 (now that I have a minute to actually research it...)

1 Cor 15
24 then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.
which I believe describes the Kingdom alluded to in Matt 13
Matt 13
43 "Then THE RIGHTEOUS WILL SHINE FORTH AS THE SUN in the kingdom of their Father He who has ears, let him hear.

The verse from Matt 13 also is a reference to Dan 12 (a prophecy on the end of things)

Dan 12
2 "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.

3 "Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.

SO, if we run the links, Matt 24 discusses the "end of the age, which Matt 13 also discusses as the harvest, which calls Dan 12 , an end time discussion. Now that may be asking too much of the text, but it seems to fit rather well to me.

At death the souls are sepearated. The final judgment comes after the resurrection and we all have ressurrected bodies. That's the difference.

Sorry, that was actually an off topic answer on my part. Just a musing I had always wondered.

Dose every blade of wheat, count as one harvest?

no. That's why I say that the harvest is a singular event and is at the end.

I will get the link tomorrow.

please do. I really respect JPs writings. I even used him in my College Comp article final on the historicity of Jesus. Got a 100 too!

As far as your boy. Been there done that. My youngest is trained no more for me. :woohoo:

He has done really well so far, just a few accidents.

About 40 min. I work down town. If you are ever in the area PM me, and we can make arrangements.

I may be in Atlanta in the summer for a week at Dobbins ARB in Cobb county. I may go a day early, so we could hook up?

:billsign:

Chief of Staff Lizard

January 14th 2005, 01:34 PM

Faramir:

You just do not know when to stop . . . “tauta” (#5023) is in the nominative* case neuter plural** form in Matt. 24:2+3. All this means is we are looking at a noun* subject and ‘many**,’ i.e., (tauta) ‘this’ = ‘these things.’ There is a subject here (nominative) and not an action verb (accusative).

Looks like Terral purchaced Greek for Dummies. Because he is right. But he is 1) not contradicting anything substantive I have already said 2) not addressing my actual point.

(Note: I later in the post Terral is responding to I say that tauta is the accusative form of houtos, because it is. But Terral is correct that it is also the nominative form, which is how it is used here. Not that the form makes any difference to my argument. I realized my mistake, after I posted the post, but left because 1) I didn't think Terral would catch it [