The Kingdom of God (SeanD and ApologiaPhoenix) Split Topic

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I don't believe the age has ended yet. Revelation records Satan being bound at the end of the book. Even if you want to argue that the temple mentioned in chap 11 is the second temple, Satan wasn't bound until well after that, and after Jesus returned with the saints. So the question is, when do you think the age ended? But this might be a discussion better suited for the eschatology section.

Sean. Are you telling me that you don't know when I, as a Preterist, believe the age ended?

[seanD]

Sean. Are you telling me that you don't know when I, as a Preterist, believe the age ended?

Well, being that there are apparently different views, labels, and divisions in the preterist camp -- like any other Christian doctrine -- It's hard to tell. Even I'm a preterist to a degree in regards to Daniel's beasts. But I"m gonna assume the age for you ended in 70 CE as well as most of the prophecies, and if that's wrong, then forgive me for lumping you in the same category. That's one of my many bad habits I'll make an effort to break. But if this is the case, then there's no point in us discussing the matter, because that view is so invalid and absurd on so many levels, I really don't want to waste anymore time refuting it than I already have in this section.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Well, being that there are apparently different views, labels, and divisions in the preterist camp -- like any other Christian doctrine -- It's hard to tell. Even I'm a preterist to a degree in regards to Daniel's beasts. But I"m gonna assume the age for you ended in 70 CE as well as most of the prophecies, and if that's wrong, then forgive me for lumping you in the same category.

You see? That's the problem. It would be 70 A.D. since we believe the events of Matthew 24 by and large were fulfilled in 70 A.D. and that Jesus was asking when the end of the age was. I really have a problem with saying a view is flat out wrong without familiarizing yourself too well with it.

That's one of my many bad habits I'll make an effort to break. But if this is the case, then there's no point in us discussing the matter, because that view is so invalid and absurd on so many levels, I really don't want to waste anymore time refuting it than I already have in this section.

But you haven't refuted it which is my problem. I don't give a darn if someone's not a Preterist really. I have a problem with one dismissing it out of hand and painting it as absurd because when you did that, you're saying "This view is simply absurd" which implies that if I believe strongly that view, well what does that say about me?

Of course, if you just want to rant against Preterists and not listen, by all means go on your way. Just don't expect me to take you seriously when you do.

[seanD]

You see? That's the problem. It would be 70 A.D. since we believe the events of Matthew 24 by and large were fulfilled in 70 A.D. and that Jesus was asking when the end of the age was. I really have a problem with saying a view is flat out wrong without familiarizing yourself too well with it.



But you haven't refuted it which is my problem. I don't give a darn if someone's not a Preterist really. I have a problem with one dismissing it out of hand and painting it as absurd because when you did that, you're saying "This view is simply absurd" which implies that if I believe strongly that view, well what does that say about me?

Of course, if you just want to rant against Preterists and not listen, by all means go on your way. Just don't expect me to take you seriously when you do.

I could give you links to places I refuted it, because it really becomes a pain rehashing the same arguments over again, but I'm more interested in what you think is the strongest argument for your view?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I could give you links to places I refuted it, because it really becomes a pain rehashing the same arguments over again, but I'm more interested in what you think is the strongest argument for your view?

The strongest argument is that Jesus said all these things would happen in this generation. I happen to believe he meant "this generation" when he said it. He didn't mean "that generation." I believe the interpretation is quite accurate given the way passages of known past fulfillments in the OT are interpreted.

[seanD]

The strongest argument is that Jesus said all these things would happen in this generation. I happen to believe he meant "this generation" when he said it. He didn't mean "that generation." I believe the interpretation is quite accurate given the way passages of known past fulfillments in the OT are interpreted.

Strictly hypothetically speaking, lets say that the OD was really future (or past 70 CE). How do you suppose Jesus should have phrased that statement instead?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Strictly hypothetically speaking, lets say that the OD was really future (or past 70 CE). How do you suppose Jesus should have phrased that statement instead?

He would not have used present tense passages throughout, for instance "When YOU see" and he would not have spoken about events relevant to a first century context like the Sabbath and the Winter and the temple. Jesus would have spoken of THAT generation also. He uses "This generation" several times in Matthew. Check and see what it means with those.

[seanD]

He would not have used present tense passages throughout, for instance "When YOU see" and he would not have spoken about events relevant to a first century context like the Sabbath and the Winter and the temple. Jesus would have spoken of THAT generation also. He uses "This generation" several times in Matthew. Check and see what it means with those.

I actually believe the OD is bilateral. He was in fact speaking to them and us at the same time. There are other places where he was using present tenses and second person tenses, but does that mean he was not broadly speaking to us as his future followers? But that's not what I asked. How do you think he should have rephrased the "this generation will not pass..." statement if the OD was future, since you specifically used this statement in your prior argument?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I actually believe the OD is bilateral. He was in fact speaking to them and us at the same time. There are other places where he was using present tenses and second person tenses, but does that mean he was not broadly speaking to us as his future followers? But that's not what I asked. How do you think he should have rephrased the "this generation will not pass..." statement if the OD was future, since you specifically used this statement in your prior argument?

See my earlier answer. I did address this.

[seanD]

See my earlier answer. I did address this.

I don't believe that's your strongest argument AP. He spoke in the second person throughout his teachings. We obviously don't believe he was talking to his followers only in all those other cases, so why should it be different with the OD? I also argue that the OD was bi-lateral, and Jesus phrased the "this generation" the only way that was practical. But even assuming the OD was future only, I firmly believe he still would have phrased it that way, because any other way would have created more confusion than was necessary.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I don't believe that's your strongest argument AP.

Think what you will.

He spoke in the second person throughout his teachings.

In general teachings, no. This is a specific event and it was a warning to the disciples. He told them what they should expect and not what future people should expect.

We obviously don't believe he was talking to his followers only in all those other cases, so why should it be different with the OD?

Because Jesus did narrow it down by saying it would be "this generation" and he spoke of events that only make sense in the first century context.

I also argue that the OD was bi-lateral, and Jesus phrased the "this generation" the only way that was practical.

And I argue that he could have easily said "That generation" but Jesus repeatedly condemns "This generation" in the gospels. It's not a shock that all that he said then happened to "this generation."

But even assuming the OD was future only, I firmly believe he still would have phrased it that way, because any other way would have created more confusion than was necessary.

How?

[seanD]

In general teachings, no. This is a specific event and it was a warning to the disciples. He told them what they should expect and not what future people should expect.

I'm saying he talked in the second person throughout his whole ministry. Are we to assume he was speaking to his followers of that generation only? Then why is it different with the OD other than the fact you want it to be different?

Because Jesus did narrow it down by saying it would be "this generation" and he spoke of events that only make sense in the first century context.

There are things within the OD that don't make sense in that generation. Here is a link on some of the things that don't work in that respect...

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...4&postcount=33

Notwithstanding the fact that it's out of chronological historical order, and that Matthew 24:30-31 would have been understood as an eschatological event, which also correlates with other of Jesus' eschatological parables (Matthew 13:40-43. Matthew 13:47-50). Jesus was also undoubtedly referencing the messianic passage in Zechariah 12:10 in Matthew 24:30-31. Zechariah chapters 12-14 is future.

And I argue that he could have easily said "That generation" but Jesus repeatedly condemns "This generation" in the gospels. It's not a shock that all that he said then happened to "this generation."

The problem is, not everything was fulfilled in the OD the way he laid it out. See my previous link.

Since the initial question was "when will these things be," had he said "that generation" would not have answered the question, thus would have inevitably created a follow-up question -- "when will this generation be"? Can you see where it presents a problem? Obviously we know that the actual time of his second coming wasn't meant to be revealed to them (Acts 1:6-7), so since -- as I believe -- it was both immediate future and distant future, basically "this generation" was adequate for the message Jesus wanted to get across to both generations.

How?

Read the previous response.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I'm saying he talked in the second person throughout his whole ministry. Are we to assume he was speaking to his followers of that generation only? Then why is it different with the OD other than the fact you want it to be different?

Because that generation saw the events that he spoke about taking place.

There are things within the OD that don't make sense in that generation. Here is a link on some of the things that don't work in that respect...

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...4&postcount=33

Let's go through these:

“For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.”

What doesn't make sense about this? Your post doesn't realize that Jews spoke in hyperbole. Solomon was promised to be wiser than any king after him. Do you think Solomon was wiser than Jesus?

“Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before. Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.”



Now I could argue that Jesus was simply warning them about false messiahs, until I get to the verse in bold, which falls in the same scriptural context. I can’t interpret this any other way than what it means -- “don’t fall for false prophets and false messiahs declaring that I’ve returned, because when I return, there will be no mistaken it.”

Correct. His followers would know when the events he described were taking place, and indeed they did! They fled Jerusalem!

“Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.”
I’m not necessarily arguing that this is the rapture (though this is pretty strong evidence for it), but this is hard to explain any other way in the context of the bold which indicates the “Lord’s return.”

Actually, it's quite easy. The people who are taken are taken in judgment.

“But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.”
Now here’s the stumper. Jesus says the day and the hour, no man knows, not even HIMSELF. What was Jesus referring to if not his second coming? Jesus could not have been talking about the 70 CE war. If you see Roman troops storming into Jerusalem, wouldn’t you have some idea when this event was about to occur?

Actually we know exactly what day and hour Jesus was referring, because he mentions it later on (Matthew 25:13), which only makes sense in that same context.

Once it happens, yes. However, the followers had no idea when this judgment was to take place. Once they did see the armies surrounding Jerusalem, they knew that the time Christ had spoken of had come, and they fled. I see no sense in the referring to Matthew 25:13 as if that explains things.

"But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."
Why did Jesus compare this event to the days of Noah if it wasn’t a final apocalypse? We could argue that it was metaphorical to express a terrible day. But, IMO, it makes more sense that Jesus was equating it to an event that ceased an age and wiped out most of humanity.

Jesus took a judgment of God that wiped out the people who were living in wickedness and used it to address another one. Both would be seen as universal in scope.

“And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.”
What can "redemption" mean other than Jesus’ return here, since they have to “look up” for this redemption?

Could it mean maybe the Son of Man taking his throne and thus the vindication of their salvation? Also, it could mean deliverance from Jewish persecution that was common at the time. Either one would work.

Notwithstanding the fact that it's out of chronological historical order, and that Matthew 24:30-31 would have been understood as an eschatological event, which also correlates with other of Jesus' eschatological parables (Matthew 13:40-43. Matthew 13:47-50). Jesus was also undoubtedly referencing the messianic passage in Zechariah 12:10 in Matthew 24:30-31. Zechariah chapters 12-14 is future.

Sounds like you're begging the question on what is future and what isn't. This is the Purple Cow Fallacy. Maybe you should spend some time at the Preterist Site.

The problem is, not everything was fulfilled in the OD the way he laid it out. See my previous link.

Here that mooing? It's the Purple Cow!

Since the initial question was "when will these things be," had he said "that generation" would have inevitably created a follow-up question -- "when will this generation be"? Can you see where it presents a problem?

Nope. Jesus is clear. The generation that sees these signs is the one that will see his coming.

Obviously we know that the actual time of his second coming wasn't meant to be revealed to them (Acts 1:6-7), so since -- as I believe -- it was both immediate future and distant future, basically "this generation" was adequate for the message Jesus wanted to get across to both generations.

hmmm. I don't see a second coming mentioned in Acts 1:6-7. Do you?

Read the previous response.

Still not seeing it.

If this is the best you've got, you'll need to get a lot more. Have you ever read DDW's commentary on Matthew 24?

[seanD]

What doesn't make sense about this? Your post doesn't realize that Jews spoke in hyperbole. Solomon was promised to be wiser than any king after him. Do you think Solomon was wiser than Jesus?

It's a little more than hyperbole, AP. I might accept the first sentence as such, but "the days will be shortened lest no flesh survive," what does that have to do with hyperbole? "For the elects sake they will be shortened." What does that have to do with hyperbole? There is an extended message there that is more than just "it will be the worst event ever in the history of mankind." This is the danger of assuming allegory where you want to assume it, because where do you draw the line with this?

Correct. His followers would know when the events he described were taking place, and indeed they did! They fled Jerusalem!

Huh? What does them fleeing have to do with false prophets? They fled because Jesus told them when to flee. Are you saying they were in danger of believing Tydus and Roman legions were false prophets?

And btw, it's chronologically out of whack here. The false prophets, recorded in Josephus, occurred before the troops entered Jerusalem (of course Luke mentions them surrounding Jerusalem in its place). Mark and Mat attributed this prophecy to Daniel 9 when they would destroy the sanctuary. Furthermore Mat already warned them about false prophets before this verse.

Actually, it's quite easy. The people who are taken are taken in judgment.

Hmm, that's pretty shaky, but okay. So you're saying God got all the Jews, who for some reason didn't deserve judgment, out of Jerusalem in time before it was surrounded? And all the Jews who fought against the Romans were picked for this specific judgment?

Once it happens, yes. However, the followers had no idea when this judgment was to take place. Once they did see the armies surrounding Jerusalem, they knew that the time Christ had spoken of had come, and they fled. I see no sense in the referring to Matthew 25:13 as if that explains things.

AP, the day and the hour? You do realize that the initial war started in 66 CE, right? How long do you think the word would have gotten out that the troops on both sides were assembling in the city of Jerusalem?

Jesus took a judgment of God that wiped out the people who were living in wickedness and used it to address another one. Both would be seen as universal in scope.

Okay, I'll concede this.

Could it mean maybe the Son of Man taking his throne and thus the vindication of their salvation? Also, it could mean deliverance from Jewish persecution that was common at the time. Either one would work.

What vindication? They were persecuted even more severe at the hands of the Romans. And this doesn't adequately work anyway, because Jewish persecution did not stop at 70 CE. Christians were officially rejected from the synagogues at the turn of century when Judaism severed ties once and for all from Christianity.

Sounds like you're begging the question on what is future and what isn't. This is the Purple Cow Fallacy. Maybe you should spend some time at the Preterist Site.

Then shall we have a debate about Zechariah 14? There is a thread already open.

Nope. Jesus is clear. The generation that sees these signs is the one that will see his coming.

Then I guess you'll have to chalk it up as a false prophecy, because they never saw him return with angels to gather everyone for judgment.

hmmm. I don't see a second coming mentioned in Acts 1:6-7. Do you?

I don't think I really have to get into detail about Jewish eschatology, do I? I"m sure you're aware that one of the key expectations of the Messiah they were expecting was the restoration of Israel. I think they would have been smart enough to figure out what Jesus meant and equate it to his second coming.

If this is the best you've got, you'll need to get a lot more.

Ditto. lol.

Have you ever read DDW's commentary on Matthew 24?

No.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

It's a little more than hyperbole, AP. I might accept the first sentence as such, but "the days will be shortened lest no flesh survive," what does that have to do with hyperbole? "For the elects sake they will be shortened." What does that have to do with hyperbole? There is an extended message there that is more than just "it will be the worst event ever in the history of mankind." This is the danger of assuming allegory where you want to assume it, because where do you draw the line with this?

What does that have to do with hyperbole? Just the little fact that it is hyperbole. Hyperbole will draw things out to be the worst possible event to make a point. It's quite true in fact! The destruction of Jerusalem at the time was hideous!

Huh? What does them fleeing have to do with false prophets? They fled because Jesus told them when to flee. Are you saying they were in danger of believing Tydus and Roman legions were false prophets?

They were told when to flee. It was when they saw the abomination causing desolation. Not at the false prophets. The abomination causing desolation was the armies surrounding Jerusalem as Luke shows. (By the way, it's Titus.)

And btw, it's chronologically out of whack here. The false prophets, recorded in Josephus, occurred before the troops entered Jerusalem (of course Luke mentions them surrounding Jerusalem in its place). Mark and Mat attributed this prophecy to Daniel 9 when they would destroy the sanctuary. Furthermore Mat already warned them about false prophets before this verse.

Not at all. They've been told to flee and now they're being told how to truly recognize Christ. He won't be anywhere on Earth at the time. He will be taking his throne in Heaven.

Hmm, that's pretty shaky, but okay. So you're saying God got all the Jews, who for some reason didn't deserve judgment, out of Jerusalem in time before it was surrounded? And all the Jews who fought against the Romans were picked for this specific judgment?

No. I'm saying that some people died and that death was judgment. Note who was taken in the flood. It wasn't Noah and his family. They were the ones who were not taken.

AP, the day and the hour? You do realize that the initial war started in 66 CE, right? How long do you think the word would have gotten out that the troops on both sides were assembling in the city of Jerusalem?

Not too long, but until then they would not know. There were wars and rumors of wars and then the armies surrounded Jerusalem. Something happened that caused them to have to draw back which the Christians recognized s the time they should flee, and they did.

Okay, I'll concede this.

Good.

What vindication? They were persecuted even more severe at the hands of the Romans. And this doesn't adequately work anyway, because Jewish persecution did not stop at 70 CE. Christians were officially rejected from the synagogues at the turn of century when Judaism severed ties once and for all from Christianity.

What was the danger of the church in Hebrews? Who did Paul say wrath was coming on in 1 Thess. 2? Who were his main persecutors in the book of Acts? Also for vindication, it would be the message to the Jews at the time that they had abandoned the covenant by crucifying the Messiah. That was vindication.

Then shall we have a debate about Zechariah 14? There is a thread already open.

Have you read what the Lizard wrote about Zechariah 14? I'd also suggest bringing any debate here.

Then I guess you'll have to chalk it up as a false prophecy, because they never saw him return with angels to gather everyone for judgment.

Gather everyone for judgment? I don't see that in the text. I see he will send his angels out to gather them. Now there is not a specific word for angels. John the Baptist is referred to as an angel. It just means messenger, be it heavenly or earthly. In this case, I see this as speaking of the gospel going out into the world as Christ spoke of with asking the Lord of the harvest to send out workers into the field.

Again, you're committing the purple cow fallacy, which I will indicate clearly when I see it happening again.

I don't think I really have to get into detail about Jewish eschatology, do I? I"m sure you're aware that one of the key expectations of the Messiah they were expecting was the restoration of Israel. I think they would have been smart enough to figure out what Jesus meant and equate it to his second coming.

Yes. They were expecting it. I'd also say they were wrong. Christ did not come to destroy Rome and then at the end of the age sit on the throne in Jerusalem. He's occupying a much more important throne. Keep in mind Jews weren't expecting the Messiah to be crucified either.

Ditto. lol.

Which explains why you conceded a point to me and I haven't had to give an inch.

No.

http://preteristsite.com/plain/warrenend.html