Preterism 101

[Paidion]

Now a bit about the proof texts which speak of things drawing near:

65. "...as you see the Day drawing near." (Heb. 10:25)

"Drawing near" and "at hand" may not always be exactly what the preterists claim. Consider:

The end of all things has drawn near... 1 Peter 4:7

Had the end of ALL things drawn near when Peter wrote these words? It seems obvious that there have been quite a few things which have happened during the two millenia which followed. So the end of all things must be yet future, and not very near to Peter's day at all!

Interestingly, Peter wrote that because the end of all things had drawn near, his readers should keep sane and sober in their prayers.

 

[Sinthesis]

Here is what I find so sad, parousia70. They DO see it--in their heart of hearts, they see it. But they cannot accept it because to accept it would destroy their entire system. In spite of all of the other uses of "this generation" in which Jesus clearly means His contemporaries, they simply cannot allow Matthew 24:34 to mean the same thing.

What I find sad is the parallel between futurists and those long gone Jews of 'this generation' who could not accept Jesus as the Messiah, because to do so would destroy their preconceived notion of what the first coming of Christ would be like. :verysad

 

[sheshisown]

parousia70~

I hope you will accept my appology for getting into a subject I should not have in your topic~

I was mistakenly responding to Vic's comment...

BTW~ I have not seen this because my PC went berserk for a few days, sorry, it has been a mess clearing it up. :crazy

bonnie

 

[Sinthesis]

The Greek verb is "εÆονεÃαÄε". The word "you" is inherent in the ending of this verb. However, it is plural.
That he is addressing the Jews as a people does not hinge on whether this verb is singular or plural.

As for the idea that Jesus always used "generation" to mean his contemporaries is ludicrous. I tried substituting "Jewish people" in the verses quoted, and it is meaningful in NINE of the verses.

Furthermore, NEITHER meaning is correct for Acts 8:33!

For how could , "Who will relate his generation? (or "declare his generation") possibly refer to the generation in which Christ lived? What would such a question mean?

The question can be restated, "Who will relate the manner in which the Father, before all ages, generated (or "begat") the Son?"

Sometimes I feel 'culture' fits better instead of 'generation'. What a generation shares is a culture. This culture can change over time. If you live by the values of another generation you could be considered morally responsible for past acts done by others. Anybody here have sympathy for 30yr old Nazis?

Followers of Jesus exhibited different values than their parent Jewish culture, and were persecuted for it by the Jews. Jesus started a new culture which continues to this day. Acts 8:33(Isaiah 53:8) is referring to the mystery of how could Jesus' message survive to change the world after He left it.

 

[Matthew24:34]

Ok, I'm reading this with no real prejudice, but Paidion does have a point. Why ignore it if it's valid? The futurist is being asked to do the same by you two. What's fair is fair.

that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.

YOU, first person, singular.

The word "you" actually isn't in that verse.

Mat 23:35 ThatG3704 uponG1909 youG5209 may comeG2064 allG3956 the righteousG1342 bloodG129 shedG1632 uponG1909 theG3588 earth,G1093 fromG575 theG3588 bloodG129 of righteousG1342 AbelG6 untoG2193 theG3588 bloodG129 of ZachariasG2197 sonG5207 of Barachias,G914 whomG3739 ye slewG5407 betweenG3342 theG3588 templeG3485 andG2532 theG3588 altar.G2379

G5407 means "to be a murderer (of): - kill, do murder, slay."

Better said "whom slew between." No "you" in the Greek there. ;)

Greetings, Researcher: As I mentioned in another post here, there is "you" in the Greek. It is not first person (you never is) but is second person. It is not singular but is plural. The correct rendering is "you (plural) murdered."

Sincerely, Matthew24:34

 

[Vic C.]

The "you=singular" was my mistake.

 

[Matthew24:34]

The Greek verb is "εÆονεÃαÄε". The word "you" is inherent in the ending of this verb. However, it is plural.
That he is addressing the Jews as a people does not hinge on whether this verb is singular or plural.

As for the idea that Jesus always used "generation" to mean his contemporaries is ludicrous. I tried substituting "Jewish people" in the verses quoted, and it is meaningful in NINE of the verses.

Furthermore, NEITHER meaning is correct for Acts 8:33!

For how could , "Who will relate his generation? (or "declare his generation") possibly refer to the generation in which Christ lived? What would such a question mean?

The question can be restated, "Who will relate the manner in which the Father, before all ages, generated (or "begat") the Son?"

Greetings, Paidion: Actually, Acts 8:33 is irrelevant to "this" discussion. Notice I didn't say "that" discussion but "this" discussion. That lets you know that it is the current discussion that is in view, right?

The key is only those verses which contain the demonstrative pronoun "this." There are around twenty! Jesus uses "this generation" (η γενεα αÅÄη). It is THIS generation that Jesus had in view. It was that generation of Jews who was to see the destruction or desolation of their city. It was that very generation of Jews whom Jesus condemned because they themselves were going to scourge and persecute the prophets He would send to THEM. Jesus had warned the Twelve about this very thing in Matthew 10; He warned those very disciples right there with Him on the Mount of Olives that they would suffer such things.

According to Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 325--"The demonstrative pronoun is a pointer, singling out an object in a special way. The three demonstrative pronouns used in the NT are οÅÄοÂ, εκεινοÂ, and οδε. (This last one is rare, occurring only ten times.) οÅÄο regularly refers to the near object (“thisâ€Â), while εκεινο regularly refers to the far object (“thatâ€Â).â€Â
Clearly, Jesus could have used εκεινο to express a generation other than the one in which He was then living. By using the demonstrative pronoun, οÅÄοÂ, He conveyed His contemporary generation!

Jesus always used it of His contemporaries:

Matthew 11:16 “But to what shall I like this generation? (Äην γενεαν ÄαÅÄην)
Matthew 12:41 “The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation (Äη γενεα ÄαÅÄηÂ).
Matthew 12:42 “The queen of Sheba will rise up in the judgment with this generation (Äη γενεα ÄαÅÄηÂ).
Matthew 12:45 “So shall it be with this generationâ€Â(Äη γενεα ÄαÅÄη).
Matthew 23:36 “. . . all these things will come upon this generationâ€Â(Äην γενεαν ÄαÅÄην).
Matthew 24:34 “. . . this generation (η γενεα αÅÄη) will by no means pass away till all these things take place.
Mark 8:12 “Why does this generation (η γενεα αÅÄη) seek a sign? Assuredly, I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation†(Äη γενεα ÄαÅÄη).
Mark 8:38 “For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation . . . “ (Äη γενεα ÄαÅÄη).
Mark 13:30 “. . . this generation (η γενεα αÅÄη) will by no means pass away till all these things take place.â€Â
Luke 7:31 “To what then shall I liken the men of this generationâ€Â(Äη γενεα ÄαÅÄηÂ).
Luke 11:29 “This is an evil generation†(η γενεα αÅÄη).
Luke 11:30 “For as Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so also the Son of Man will be to this generation†(Äη γενεα ÄαÅÄη).
Luke 11:31 “The queen of the South will rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation†(Äη γενεα ÄαÅÄηÂ).
Luke 11:32 “The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation†(Äη γενεα ÄαÅÄηÂ).
Luke 11:50 “. . . the blood of all the proph the world may be required of this generation†(Äη γενεα ÄαÅÄηÂ).
Luke 11:51 “. . . from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah . . . . it shall be required of this generationâ€Â(Äη γενεα ÄαÅÄηÂ).
Luke 17:25 “But first He must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation†(Äη γενεα ÄαÅÄηÂ).
Luke 21:32 “Assuredly, I say to you, this generation (η γενεα αÅÄη) will by no means pass away till all things take place.â€Â

Spoken by Peter in his sermon to the “men and brethren†(verse 37)â€â€

Acts 2:40 “Be saved from this perverse generation†(Äη γενεα Äη Ãκολια ÄαÅÄηÂ).

When "this generation"was used by Jesus (and Peter in Acts 2), it referred to His contemporaries!

Sincerely, Matthew24:34

 

 

[researcher]

The word "you" actually isn't in that verse.

Mat 23:35 ThatG3704 uponG1909 youG5209 may comeG2064 allG3956 the righteousG1342 bloodG129 shedG1632 uponG1909 theG3588 earth,G1093 fromG575 theG3588 bloodG129 of righteousG1342 AbelG6 untoG2193 theG3588 bloodG129 of ZachariasG2197 sonG5207 of Barachias,G914 whomG3739 ye slewG5407 betweenG3342 theG3588 templeG3485 andG2532 theG3588 altar.G2379

G5407 means "to be a murderer (of): - kill, do murder, slay."

Better said "whom slew between." No "you" in the Greek there. ;)

Greetings, Researcher: As I mentioned in another post here, there is "you" in the Greek. It is not first person (you never is) but is second person. It is not singular but is plural. The correct rendering is "you (plural) murdered."

Sincerely, Matthew24:34

OK. I think Paidon mentioned that "you" is implied in the word for "kill(ed)" (ÆονεÃÂÉ).
I was just making note that the actual Greek word "you" ( ὑμᾶÂ) only appears at the beginning of the verse (that upon you ( ὑμᾶÂ)) but not before the word "slew." Apparently it is implied in the word. :P

At any rate, it doesn't change the fact that Jesus came back and a whole bunch of people got raptured. :angel :o :D

 

[Vic C.]

At any rate, it doesn't change the fact that Jesus came back and a whole bunch of people got raptured. :o :D

This is supposition. It's hardly a fact; it's a belief! Where are the records of the eyewitnesses? Where is the written and/or oral account of this belief? A whole bunch of people being whisked off the face of the earth would have raised some red flags with someone! Why wasn't this belief taught by the EFCs?

 

[researcher]

At any rate, it doesn't change the fact that Jesus came back and a whole bunch of people got raptured. :o :D

This is supposition. It's hardly a fact; it's a belief! Where are the records of the eyewitnesses? Where is the written and/or oral account of this belief? A whole bunch of people being whisked off the face of the earth would have raised some red flags with someone! Why wasn't this belief taught by the EFCs?

I don't think it is supposition. It should be fact. Jesus said it would happen to the disciples.

As for why there aren't records of people being taken away, there were only like, 2 historians in that period. Only one apparently was at Jerusalem during it's fall. He was under the control of the Romans though. The authorities hated the Christians and didn't want their religion to grow. It would have been as easy as pie to tell Josephus not to write anything down. The Romans changed history how they wanted it to be seen. The Jews started the lie about Jesus not coming back from the dead but being stolen by the disciples. Common practice if you are in authority and don't want something known, get rid of the recordings of it and tell a different story.

There was no CNN, no internet, news traveled as fast as foot or chariot. Did one village keep track of what another village was doing on a daily basis? So what if some people disappeared one day. Would ancient people think that much of it? They would think, huh, guess they went to the next village, or, on a trip, or died somewhere. It would not be widespread instant news like we have today. Maybe they would have thought the Christians up and left because they were being persecuted. Would people be that worried about it? They had to make their livings in the fields and marketplaces so they could eat, not worry about where some people they didn't like went off to.

It was a much different world 2000 years ago. It was common knowledge the Christians were hated and persecuted. How many people actually gave a rat's behind if they were gone? I doubt a lot of them. LOL. ;) Probably just happy they were gone. :P Of course there is Timothy, Paul's prodigy and the next up and comer in the church. Wonder why we never heard anything from him? Where'd he go?

 

[Vic C.]

There was no CNN, no internet, news traveled as fast as foot or chariot. Did one village keep track of what another village was doing on a daily basis? So what if some people disappeared one day. Would ancient people think that much of it? They would think, huh, guess they went to the next village, or, on a trip, or died somewhere. It would not be widespread instant news like we have today. Maybe they would have thought the Christians up and left because they were being persecuted. Would people be that worried about it? They had to make their livings in the fields and marketplaces so they could eat, not worry about where some people they didn't like went off to.

... and yet despite all the first century imperfections, God somehow miraculously preserved His written word. In that written word was what was to happen to believers, all, not just some. Or do we not somehow fit into God's plan? I suppose 1 Corinthians 15 has no meaning any more either.

Either the events happened in 70AD just as the full Preterists would have us believe, which would mean God thought it an insignificant event and didn't feel the need to tell anyone in the future or... the actual physical appearance, resurrection and transformation are still to come.

Someone said the preterist has time. But according to their doctrine, time is up and we all missed the train. Curtis Mayfield wasted his time when he wrote,

"People get ready
There's a train a commin'
You don't need no baggage
You just get on board ..."

 

[researcher]

There was no CNN, no internet, news traveled as fast as foot or chariot. Did one village keep track of what another village was doing on a daily basis? So what if some people disappeared one day. Would ancient people think that much of it? They would think, huh, guess they went to the next village, or, on a trip, or died somewhere. It would not be widespread instant news like we have today. Maybe they would have thought the Christians up and left because they were being persecuted. Would people be that worried about it? They had to make their livings in the fields and marketplaces so they could eat, not worry about where some people they didn't like went off to.

... and yet despite all the first century imperfections, God somehow miraculously preserved His written word. In that written word was what was to happen to believers, all, not just some. Or do we not somehow fit into God's plan? I suppose 1 Corinthians 15 has no meaning any more either.

Either the events happened in 70AD just as the full Preterists would have us believe, which would mean God thought it an insignificant event and didn't feel the need to tell anyone in the future or... the actual physical appearance, resurrection and transformation are still to come.

Someone said the preterist has time. But according to their doctrine, time is up and we all missed the train. Curtis Mayfield wasted his time when he wrote,

"People get ready
There's a train a commin'
You don't need no baggage
You just get on board ..."

I think time went on after the rapture. God is a spirit, rules from heaven (the saints ruling with Him), lives in people, works through them.

I believe this is where we are now:

Rev 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
Rev 20:8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
Rev 20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.
Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
Rev 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

 

[Vic C.]

Ok, a sort of post tribulational view. That's a bit clearer for me. :D

Going past Rev 20:8 presents a problem though. The Adversary and his two cohorts are thrown into the lake. Without them, there would be no more evil influences upon the earth. Evil doesn't seem to be fleeing though.

I don't watch the news much anymore. Why? Too much evil in the world. Depressing, heh?

 

[Paidion]

Greetings, Paidion: Actually, Acts 8:33 is irrelevant to "this" discussion.

If it's irrelevant, then why was it listed among the many proof texts which supposedly indicate that "generation" always refers to contemporaries within a time frame of about 25 or 30 years?

Did it suddenly become irrelevant because I showed that it had a different meaning from the one that is "always" used in the Scriptures?

 

[researcher]

Ok, a sort of post tribulational view. That's a bit clearer for me. :D

Going past Rev 20:8 presents a problem though. The Adversary and his two cohorts are thrown into the lake. Without them, there would be no more evil influences upon the earth. Evil doesn't seem to be fleeing though.

I don't watch the news much anymore. Why? Too much evil in the world. Depressing, heh?

I think Satan is out right now. I think he influenced the last election. ;) :mad

I "think" the fire from the sky is nuclear weapons.

And I think it will be us letting them off.

Who knows after that.

News? Watch FOX. :P I turn the channel if Hussein come on. :\ ;)

 

[Sinthesis]

Ok, a sort of post tribulational view. That's a bit clearer for me. :D

Going past Rev 20:8 presents a problem though. The Adversary and his two cohorts are thrown into the lake. Without them, there would be no more evil influences upon the earth. Evil doesn't seem to be fleeing though.

I don't watch the news much anymore. Why? Too much evil in the world. Depressing, heh?

I think Satan is out right now. I think he influenced the last election. ;) :mad

I "think" the fire from the sky is nuclear weapons.

And I think it will be us letting them off.

Who knows after that.

News? Watch FOX. :P I turn the channel if Hussein come on. :\ ;)

:rolling

 

[researcher]

Ok, a sort of post tribulational view. That's a bit clearer for me. :D

Going past Rev 20:8 presents a problem though. The Adversary and his two cohorts are thrown into the lake. Without them, there would be no more evil influences upon the earth. Evil doesn't seem to be fleeing though.

I don't watch the news much anymore. Why? Too much evil in the world. Depressing, heh?

I think Satan is out right now. I think he influenced the last election. ;) :mad

I "think" the fire from the sky is nuclear weapons.

And I think it will be us letting them off.

Who knows after that.

News? Watch FOX. :P I turn the channel if Hussein come on. :\ ;)

:rolling

commentary?

 

[Matthew24:34]

Greetings, Paidion: Actually, Acts 8:33 is irrelevant to "this" discussion.

If it's irrelevant, then why was it listed among the many proof texts which supposedly indicate that "generation" always refers to contemporaries within a time frame of about 25 or 30 years?

Did it suddenly become irrelevant because I showed that it had a different meaning from the one that is "always" used in the Scriptures?

Greetings, Paidion: You'll have to take up the issue of Acts 8:33 with parousia70. He was attempting to make a different point! My point in the nearly TWENTY verses that I posted that clearly say "THIS generation," is that in them Jesus always indicated His contemporaries.

Will you consider them? Thank you.

Sincerely, Matthew24:34

 

[Matthew24:34]

One can get so wrapped up in eschatology that one gets sidetracked from our main purpose in Christ. So that's why I didn't begin to comment on these many proof texts in support of preterism. However, since there seems to be a great desire to see a futurist comment on even one of the verses, I will proceed to do so. I hope to comment on some of the others in the future:

Matthew 24:34 "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. RSV

Just what is a "generation"? Does it refer to all people alive during a particular time? The word indeed can mean that.Usually a "generation" in this sense is considered to be about 25 years. But, according to the Online Bible Greek Lexicon, the Greek word "γενεα" ("genea")can also refer to people of the same stock or family, in this case the Jewish people. To see that this is the case consider, the following from the previous chapter:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ Thus you witness against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly, I say to you, all this will come upon this generation. Matthew 23:29-36 RSV

Now it is clear that the generation of Jewish people who were Jesus' contemporaries did not shed the blood of the prophets. They did not kill Abel. They did not kill Zechariah the son of Barachiah. So it appears that Jesus is addressing the Israelites as a whole, a people of the same stock, the descendants of Israel.

Greetings, Paidion:

You said: "Now it is clear that the generation of Jewish people who were Jesus' contemporaries did not shed the blood of the prophets. They did not kill Abel. They did not kill Zechariah the son of Barachiah. So it appears that Jesus is addressing the Israelites as a whole, a people of the same stock, the descendants of Israel."

Again, you miss the timing, which is the key to understanding! Jesus was addressing the "Scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites right there with Him. They did not personally kill Abel and Zechariah but notice why they personally were going to be THIS generation who paid for it all. Jesus said to THEM--"Therefore, you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers' guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth" (verses 31-35).

What was the punishment to be for these crimes committed by their forefathers and by them personally--they who filled up the measure of their fathers' guilt? THEIR house was to be left unto THEM desolate in their generation! They were not guiltless! They themselves were going to commit the same crimes their forefathers had committed--even putting to death the ultimate Prophet sent to them. Jesus warned the Twelve before He sent them out to the lost sheep of Israel that the Jews of their day would mistreat and kill them (Mat. 10). THOSE Jews were guilty of it all!

Besides, what generation is there that Jesus could have been condemning for all the righteous blood shed on the earth? No single generation could have killed both Abel and Zechariah since the generations of these evil acts were separated by many generations! And many generations came and went that had spilled more righteous blood. How could any single generation be personally guilty of actually committing all of those crimes? It is extremely rare to find "generation" used with the meaning you assign it, and it is never found with that meaning when it is defined by the demonstrative pronoun "this.

It is obvious that one generation which had not personally killed Abel and Zechariah and all the other righteous blood shed on the earth was going to pay. A time was coming when it was all going to come to a head. That murderous, adulterous, persecuting, scourging generation of scribes, pharisees and hypocrites of Jesus' day was to pay the price. They would not escape the condemnation of hell and God's wrath. "Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon THIS generation." And they did!

By your reasoning, Poidion, what generation could ever be actually guilty of those crimes? If that generation of Jews right there with Jesus could not be guilty because they themselves did not kill Abel and Zechariah, how could any generation be guilty other than the very ones who actually commited the murders? As I already mentioned, only one generation can be personally and totally guilty if generation is given the unusual meaning you want to give it. But again, Poidion, you miss the point of γενεα (genea) in this context. Jesus was not speaking in generalities. He clearly narrowed down the meaning when He said THIS generation (η γενεα αÅÄη). One must ultimately find the meaning of genea in the context and in the demonstrative pronoun and not in a lexicon! That very first-century generation of apostate Jews of the synagogue of Satan (Rev. 2:9; 3:9), which was the "this" generation Jesus spoke of, brought the condemnation of hell upon themselves and their temple, their city, and their position as the people of God by filling up the measure of their fathers' guilt when they crucified the Messiah and those He sent to them. That generation of Jesus' own day was brought to a bloody, final end in A. D. 70 when the "power of the holy people" was forever and "completely shattered" (Dan. 12:7). It was the "time of the end" of Daniel 8:17 and the time when "the transgressors" had "reached their fullness" (Dan. 8:23) when that first-century generation of Jews filled up the measure of their fathers' guilt. It was the "time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation"(Dan. 12:1--see also Matthew 24 where Jesus clearly assigned that time to His generation in verse 34).

Sincerely, Matthew24:34

 

[Paidion]

Besides, what generation is there that Jesus could have been condemning for all the righteous blood shed on the earth? No single generation could have killed both Abel and Zechariah since the generations of these evil acts were separated by many generations! And many generations came and went that had spilled more righteous blood. How could any single generation be personally guilty of actually committing all of those crimes?

Exactly. No single "generation" as you use the term, could have been guilty of all those crimes. But when you consider the people group, of whom the "scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites" represented, that group as such WAS guilty of all ---- with the exception of the killing of Abel. But then no one on the earth is descended from Cain. All of Cain's descendants died in the Flood. All 8 persons on the Ark were descended from Seth, and thus all people since then are descended from Seth. So I don't understand how "this generation" regardless of the meaning of "generation" could "fill up the measure of their father's guilt" with reference to the slaying of Abel.