Strengthening families through biblical principles.
Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.
Read daily articles from Focus on the Family in the Marriage and Parenting Resources forum.
, The context of discussion in Matthew 24 and Matthew 25 is "The return of Jesus Christ" aka the coming of the Son of Man.
[FONT="]Where is the phrase destruction of the temple or the temple destroyed, or Sanctuary destroyed in Matthew 24 or 25?
The Lord said these words -"Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down."
Yet In His answer we don't find the phrase Temple Destroyed, Sanctuary Destroyed, as in Daniel, or [FONT="] not one stone shall be left here upon another[/FONT][/FONT].
And I'm being super nice about this too! I haven't even touched the subject of how much ego and pure vanity it takes to believe that someone who talks to people of a certain time and plainly tells them that it's about them, in their time, is really talking to me (Futurists), today!
I'm confused. Is this post for us, or just people 2000yrs from now?
Actually, it is there. The disciples were pointing out the temple to Him and that is what He responded to, since that is what their questions were about and He did say those words to them, about that temple.
And your comment is also confusing, since you seem to acknowledge this, yet you then state that it's not there, like (as) it is in Daniel, which is where those words are NOT found.
But going by the rest of your post, I am going to assume that you are saying that Jesus did not tell them those things and that He was not talking about the temple then being destroyed. And my position is that He clearly was!
Furthermore, in 70AD, the temple was destroyed, with "not one stone left upon another", just as Jesus said it would be.
Lastly, no offense, but it's you who's taking things out of context, not us. You're taking Matt 24-25 out of their context. The context begins in Matt 23, not Matt 24.
What Futurists don't realize, is that the events of Matt 23-24 take place all at the same time.
In Matt 23, Jesus and His disciples are in the temple and Jesus is blasting the scribes and the Pharisees and He definitely told them that the temple would be destroyed and that they would see it happen. He told them that it would happen in that same generation. Read Matt 23, but especially Matt 23:34-38.
And when it says in Matt 24 that they walked up the mount, where do you think they were coming from? From the temple, in Matt 23.
And the interesting part here, is that Futurists, who are in general ignorant about the Scriptures, because what they know is their doctrine, not the Scriptures, is that before being taught that Matt 24 connectsx to Matt 23, these same Futurists readily admit that in Matt 23:36, Jesus is definitedly talking about that very same generation.
Of course, again, they readily admit this, because they do not realize that Matt 24 does NOT jump ahead in time, more than maybe 20 minutes. And they get real upset when they find that out! And even more so, when they find out that even worse for their doctrine, it's all part of the same subject of discussion! And that's because it means that they don't get to continue playing their word games with Matt 24:34!
The fact is, that in Matt 23, as I said, Jesus is standing there with His disciples and He is blasting both the scribes and the Pharisees and then tells them that THEY will pay the price for their sins. That it will happen in THEIR generation. That THEIR temple will be destroyed. That the culmination of the sins of all of the previous generation will come in THEIR time.
Read Matt 23:34-38 for yourself and do us both a favor and stop trying to get around these Scriptures and face up to them for once!
Anyway, it was on this note that they exited the temple (His disciples in utter shock) and walked up the mount and when they had done so, the disciples turned to Jesus, pointing out the glory of the temple, as if to say; "Surely not this temple, Lord!" and then proceeded to ask Him their questions.
NOT some other questions, about some other subject that they just thought up out of the blue, like you wish they did. Could you just forget about what Jesus just said, if the temple were the center of your entire life, like it was for every Jew there?! No! Of course not! You couldn't even do that today, minutes after hearing someone say your church would be burned down! And that specific building isn't even anywhere near as important to you, as their temple was to them!
And so, Jesus answered THEIR questions. NOT the ones that you wish He asked, because they would fit your doctrine, but rather, the ones that they actually asked! And the questions they asked, were about the temple that Jesus HAD JUST SAID was going to be destroyed, in that very same generation!
And THAT, my friend, is "the context" of those chapters.
Whether anyone likes it or not, it was about the then standing temple and its destruction! And nowhere did Jesus ever say to them; "But skip it the first time it happens, okay guys?".
I mean, was Jesus' time machine broken or something? He's really talking to you, today and was so dimwitted, that He figured that the best way to do that, was to come in the 1st century and lie to people and mislead pedople in the 1st century about when it would happen?
Huh?!? Puhlease!!!
Nowhere did Jesus ever say to them...
"Okay guys, now listen up. I know that I came in the 1st century and that I keep looking at you when I'm talking about this stuff and that I keep saying to you the word 'you' about who these things will happen to, but when I do that, I'm not really talking to you! I'm really talking to people who will live thousands of years from now, okay? I mean, after all, obviously anyone who comes in the 1st century didn't want to talk to people in the 1st century! So why do you guys keep getting upset about all this destruction stuff, like it's going to happen to you?! Don't you guys know about the standard, 'If you travel thru time, always land two millennia off' rule?! C'mon, guys! Why would I come now, if I wanted to talk to you? Obviously, if I wanted to talk to you, I would have come 2,000 years ago!"
Nope! Jesus never said that to them! But according to your doctrine, that's what He must have believed! Or while traveling, His time machine broke, He landed in their time by accident and just made the best of it, hoping that we todaý would know that He wasn't really taking to them and excuse all of the statements He made in which He said He was and just know that He was really talking to us instead.
Do you ever think your doctrine through???
According to your doctrine, in order for it to be about them in their time, He would have to have come to Earth 2,000 years before they lived, since that's the time separation that YOU place between His coming and who He was "really" talking to.
And I'm being super nice about this too! I haven't even touched the subject of how much ego and pure vanity it takes to believe that someone who talks to people of a certain time and plainly tells them that it's about them, in their time, is really talking to me (Futurists), today!
Okay, since your are wanting to play nice, then I will be nice and just quote the scripture that puts things in perspective for you.And I'm being super nice about this too! I haven't even touched the subject of how much ego and pure vanity it takes to believe that someone who talks to people of a certain time and plainly tells them that it's about them, in their time, is really talking to me (Futurists), today!
Okay, since your are wanting to play nice, then I will be nice and just quote the scripture that puts things in perspective for you.
"Watch therefore, for you do not know when the master of the house is coming--in the evening, at midnight, at the crowing of the rooster, or in the morning--lest, coming suddenly, he find you sleeping. And what I say to you..."
Hope that clears up your confusion about who Jesus was addressing in the Gospels.
Unless you don't believe the message of the Gospel is for us today? :
Show me in Jesus' Olivet Discourse ie; Matthew 24:4-25:46, where He mentions the destruction of the "city and sanctuary".
I did, by showing you that chap 23 is part of the discussion and is what their questions in chap 24 were based on, which you now intentionally ignore. Furthermore, Luke 21 is the parallel to Matt 24 and so if you want even more specific wording, then read Luke 21:20-22, in which Jesus, during HIs Olivet Discourse, specifically states that Jerusalem/Judea is the target of God's wrath.
Try your best to refer to Scripture.
I did that. You didn't like what they said. So try this time not to ignore Scripture.
But let's look at them, because when we do, what you're going to find out, is
Now, did those words include the following?
Show me in Jesus' Olivet Discourse ie; Matthew 24:4-25:46, where He mentions the destruction of the "city and sanctuary".
Jesus said -Why is it that Futurists approach problems with their doctrine by trying to pit Scripture against itself?
What I notice, is that you could not dispute the facts that I presented to you. And so, because your doctrine is more important to you than what the Scriptures actually say, instead of just admitting that, you instead try jumping to a different set of verses, as if to say that what I showed you can't be true, because gee, look at these verses...
What I say to you, I say to all.
You said -
This may come as a shock to you Pastor Dave, but the scripture is not against itself, its against you!how much ego and pure vanity it takes to believe that someone who talks to people of a certain time and plainly tells them that it's about them, in their time, is really talking to me (Futurists), today!
Again, Jesus said concerning His return -that these very same verses that you try to use to support the idea that it's about 2,000 years later, actually condemn your view and tell you that it was about back then.
The question is; To whom was Jesus speaking when He said the things you quoted Him saying? I'm not asking who your doctrine claims He was speaking to, but rather, who He was actually standing there talking to?
The answer is very simple! He was standing there talking to the people He was looking at and speaking to! Words were coming out of HIs mouth and there were people standing there hearing them.
35 Watch therefore, for you do not know when the master of the house is coming--in the evening, at midnight, at the crowing of the rooster, or in the morning-- 36 lest, coming suddenly, he find you sleeping. 37 And what I say to you, I say to all: Watch!"
And what I say to you, I say to all: Watch!"
The scripture is in direct opposition to what you said.
I have another news flash for you, so is this Forum!
Go and read it for yourself - Cfnet holds the view full preterism is heresy.
And what I say to you, I say to all: Watch!""Watch therefore, for *YOU* do not know when the master of the house is coming--in the evening, at midnight, at the crowing of the rooster, or in the morning--lest, coming suddenly, he find *YOU* sleeping."
The Gospel message is for all of us!
Just Show me in Jesus' Olivet Discourse ie; Matthew 24:4-25:46, where He mentions the destruction of the "city and sanctuary".
Please show me a scripture where it is written that there will never be another temple built!
Please show me in scripture where it is written that the Gospel message only pertains to the folks alive at the time of Jesus!
JLB
Matthew 24:33-34
"So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."
The problem is, many people understand that this Chapter is speaking about later day occurrences, and so they are puzzled as to how the phrase, "this generation," fits the context. The confusion exists because the average Christian is unaware that there are several ways that this Greek word [genea], translated generation, is used in scripture. This is in contrast to extra-biblical or secular dictionary definitions. First of all it is from the root word [genos] meaning kindred or family. In conjunction with that, it is used three distinct ways within scripture.
1. It can be used to denote a physical family generation or bloodline.
2. It can be used to denote the spiritual family or generation of evil.
3. And it can be used to denote the spiritual family or generation of Christ.
Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, Matthew 23:1Thirdly, this approach ignores the fact of the context of the discussion, which includes Matt 23.
, The context of discussion in Matthew 24 and Matthew 25 is "The return of Jesus Christ" aka the coming of the Son of Man.
[FONT="]Where is the phrase destruction of the temple or the temple destroyed, or Sanctuary destroyed in Matthew 24 or 25?
The Lord said these words -"Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down."
Yet In His answer we don't find the phrase Temple Destroyed, Sanctuary Destroyed, as in Daniel, or [FONT="] not one stone shall be left here upon another[/FONT][/FONT].
We do find it in Luke 21, but not Matthew 24 or 25.
Luke 21 never explicitly mentions the destruction of the temple. (I mean, after Luke 21:5-6.)
However, we see that (very likely) the subject is picked up again implicitly in Luke 21:20-24.
So that Matthew 24 never explicitly mentions the destruction of the temple... so what? We can easily see it as implied, just as with Luke 21.
Jesus was never asked to give more description of the event. Jesus was asked about the timing of the event. ("Tell us, when shall these things be?")
You complain that Jesus doesn't provide something in the chapter, when Jesus wasn't asked for that anyway!
Luke 21 doesn't mention a "temple destroyed" either. Sorry, but it isn't in there! It mentions an attack on Jerusalem, but it never says that the temple gets destroyed.
First of all, when you post long articles like this, that are written by someone else, it shows that *you* *yourself* do not know the subject.
Secondly, this is nothing more than an attempt to weasel around what Jesus said. There is absolutely zero indication that He was speaking to anyone except those He was speaking to and that's why He looked at THEM and said :"when YOU see....". Futurism ignores all of this.
Thirdly, this approach ignores the fact of the context of the discussion, which includes Matt 23.
Lastly, this attempt to single out the word "genea" is nothing but a word game. The fact is, the word is not all by itself, but rather, is part of the statement of "this generation". And it is ridiculous to assume that any other generation was meant.
You would not say "this generation" today and mean any other generation but the current one. Why do you assign some sort of backwarrds language to them?
Why do you try to make them into idiots who lack even common sense and who talk backwards to each other?
Why are you so arrogant, that you believe that no one else could understand what they "really" meant, until *you* were born?
The fact is, the term "houtos genea" (this generation) is never used anywhere in the NT to mean anything but that current generation and playing word games is not going to save your doctrine!
And as for the rambling about the Greek word "aion", it does mean "age". It's not "selective translation". That is being done by those who translate it as "world", when in fact, the Greek word that should be translated into "world", is "kosmos" and exactly that is done in the NT and two good examples of it are found in Matt 13:35 & John 1:9.
I'm not going to keep responding to the pasting in of articles. As I said, it just proves to me that you are clueless regarding this subject and you will desperately try to hang on to whatever anyone says, regardless of how ridiculous it actually is. But you're not going to spend 30 seconds pasting something in and then demand that someone else deal with every detail of it! And that is exactly what you're doing when you paste garbage like that in, since silence would be considered submission to it, as if it were fact, when it isn't. Pasting like this is a cop out. It shows that you'll submit to anything anyone says, as long as they end it with, "it's all about you today".
I'm sorry to seem so harsh, but sometimes that's what people need, to get their noggin working.
Besides that, I will admit that I do get a bit tired of Futurists all playing the same game and caring more about themselves and this world and making it about them today and this world, than about the truth of the Scriptures.
You complain that Jesus doesn't provide something in the chapter...
Thats funny!
I am glad that you recognize the fact that Jesus chose not to mention the destruction of the city and sanctuary in Matthew!
JLB
Okay, if you want to believe the temple wasn't destroyed in the attack on Jerusalem, then that is your choice.
JLB