Bible Study This generation shall not pass,

[Cameron]

The topic of this thread is one of the most important of these times in my opinion. What Christianity is developing into is a system where people live in fear of the future because of what they are told is going to happen in the near future

... rebellion of 70 AD

Nobelj6,

You appear to represent a partial-preterist concept.

Partial prets make some interesting hermenuetical flips:

1) In Matthew 24 they have to inserts a GAP of 2000 + years between the "tribulation" and "2nd Coming" where one is not warranted. These two events are interconnected inextricably by the framing of te questons at the beginning of Matthew 24 and how Jesus aswers them..."immedately after"...

2) The analogies used in Matthew 24 are quite similar to Luke 17's. IMHO, I think this and te above logically lead to a full-pret understanding if one is consistent

3) Prets assign value to 70 AD that the early Church did not. They uphold Josephus as if he were a Christian while ignoring the testimony of the Ante-Nicean fathers close to 70 AD. These poeple who represent 2 Timothy 2:2, did not speak of 70 AD as preterists in the 21 st Century do.

4) The early church was unagruably "Chiliastic" = premillennial, hence futurisist. They spoke of a future Tribualtion and future Antichrist unitl Augistine. they were not dispensational either -so the dominance of pretrib is also incompatible. However, futurism represented by (prewrath or post-trib) does align with what the early Church taught.

5) 70 AD was the ultmate fulfillment of 609-586 BC. They both occured on the same day of the Jewish calendar and both led to similar devistations.

168 BC was not repeated in 70 AD and yet Jesus pointed out the importance of the Abomination of Desolation in Matthew 24:15. 168 BC stillis waiting for a future repeat. The vital link is Daniel 9:24-27. Compare Matthew 24:15 (let the reader understand) with Daniel 9:25 (Know therefore and understand...)

6) Part-prets seem to be like pretribs in that they both have some sort of "secret coming". Part-prets seems to be in 70 AD when OT language is employed for Jesus to come in the clouds in judgment as opposed the clear language of Acts 1:11 in my mind. But this is a lesser point which I probably would be willng to concede as somethings are fulfilled "spiritually" before they are fulfilled physically". Jesus' post Resurrection body is a prime example.

7) It is doubtful that 70 AD was the greatest of all Trib. 609-586 BC was extremely severe. The holocaust was even worse.

 

[noblej6]

Hi Cameron,

You appear to represent a partial-preterist concept.

I would be closer to full preterist, but can't qualify totally there either because I would hold to a future second coming and FP consider it all over in 70 AD. I can't explain their reasoning or understanding on that doctrine.

1) In Matthew 24 they have to inserts a GAP of 2000 + years between the "tribulation" and "2nd Coming" where one is not warranted. These two events are interconnected inextricably by the framing of te questons at the beginning of Matthew 24 and how Jesus aswers them..."immedately after"...

Above you are talking about partial pret doctrine and I see that as you do, that the parousia is immediately after the great tribulation.

5) 70 AD was the ultmate fulfillment of 609-586 BC. They both occured on the same day of the Jewish calendar and both led to similar devistations.

I hadn't come across this until recently.

Concerning the abomination .....

I simply use the parallel verse from Luke 21. It was the Roman army that destroyed Jerusalem and the temple. They or some member of that army would be the abomination that makes desolate. The area was made desloate. Members of that army did stand in the Holy Place of that temple, people did flee from Judea at that time. Judea ceased to be a district in 70 AD. Apparently Nero's name can equal 666.

I see the Roman army as being the man of lawlessness, the tool with which God doled out His wrath on that generation that rejected HIs son.

Being a God directed desolation would be why it is termed a GREAT tribulation.

As well the sacrifice ceased within 1290 days of the abomination. The sacrifices continued in that temple even after the sacrifice of Christ but it ceased and sacrifices never again have a reason for being in the Christian religion after 70 AD.

6) Part-prets seem to be like pretribs in that they both have some sort of "secret coming". Part-prets seems to be in 70 AD when OT language is employed for Jesus to come in the clouds in judgment as opposed the clear language of Acts 1:11 in my mind. But this is a lesser point which I probably would be willng to concede as somethings are fulfilled "spiritually" before they are fulfilled physically". Jesus' post Resurrection body is a prime example.

I shouldn't speak for partial preterists because I am not very well studied, but I think you are correct.

You and I differ on the intent of Acts 1:11. I see Jesus returning on the clouds in a spiritual fashion. There are verses which show Jesus as a physical being and their are verses that show Him as spiritual. I feel He was spiritual as He left and will return in like manner.

7) It is doubtful that 70 AD was the greatest of all Trib. 609-586 BC was extremely severe. The holocaust was even worse.

Very common argument, yet I have never seen where the verses were telling us it was the worst of all tribs, the most killed, the most pain or anything else. I just think Jesus refers to it as the GREAT trib because it is not like any other in creation.
...........Followed by the parousia
...........God directed armies to provide the wrath
.........It would be the third biggest event in Christianity after the birth, and the crusifixion.
............It would be the establishment of the Kingdom of Heaven.

From among the list of "things", what do you feel does not have biblical reference of happening in 70 AD?

John

 

[John the Baptist]

The sacrificial lamb ceased at the cross! The vail was rent & the way was made into the Most Holy. Type met antitype! :o Galatians 3:19 (Moses law of Deuteronomy 31:24-26 & Deuteronomy 31:9.
---John

 

[noblej6]

Hi Bapist,

The sacrificial lamb ceased at the cross!

Ceased what?

The vail was rent & the way was made into the Most Holy.

The veil was rent in twain, ripped in two, as Jesus died, there was a eclipse too, but what did this have to do with entering the Holy Place?

And what's this type meeting the antitype bit?

???????????????????

John

 

[John the Baptist]

Hi Bapist,

The sacrificial lamb ceased at the cross!

Ceased what?

[quote:a840f]
The vail was rent & the way was made into the Most Holy.

The veil was rent in twain, ripped in two, as Jesus died, there was a eclipse too, but what did this have to do with entering the Holy Place?

And what's this type meeting the antitype bit?

???????????????????

John[/quote:a840f]

OK:
In Genesis 3:15 we see Christ making a way out of our dilemma.(eternal death) It was the conditional sacrificial offering. (lamb in most cases)
It was a life & death (eternal) agreement. See Genesis 4:7.

When Christ died, the laws that were in place pointing to this Slain Lamb (Christ in reality) were no longer needed. (anti=opposite in kind or the lamb sacrifice pointing to the death of the real Lamb, Christ)

Notice Acts 12:1-5. James had been killed, and Peter was in prison. The Word of Easter comes to view. Notice verse 3? "And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the (days of unleavened bread).

Point: It was the desolate house of Israel who were keeping the feast days. (not the new church) And John 19:31 we see that it was the preparation day, (Fri.) and the bodies were not permitted to be on the cross on the Sabbath day. But take notice that this Sabbath day was an HIGH DAY! One of Moses laws pointing to the death of Christ. These days all were FINISHED at the death of Christ as Paul states in Galatians 3:19.

"Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of trangression, TILL THE SEED SHOULD COME TO WHOM THE PROMISE WAS MADE.." (now, this was not the everlasting Covenant that told what sin is & which brought it in sight! See 1 John 3:4)

All lamb sacrifices ended at the death of Christ. There would be no purpose in offering a sacrifice after the Master died, if we accept His sacrifice. A person needs to see the difference between the Covenant of God (Ten Commandments) and the laws that Moses was instructed of God to write in a book & place in the *side of the Ark in the Most Holy place. *Inside of the Ark were the Lords Written Covenant. (in the earthly Sanctuary)

The only ones offering animal sacrifices after the cross were the ones who had been rejected. Matthew 23:38. Not Christians.

---John

 

[noblej6]

Hi Baptist,


I have no idea what message the first part of your post is supposed to convey.

The only ones offering animal sacrifices after the cross were the ones who had been rejected. Matthew 23:38. Not Christians.

Gee, I think you're getting it. No, the ones who continued to leave sacrifices in the Temple in Jerusalem were not Christians, in fact they were the ones who rejected Christ.

THEY weren't rejected, THEY rejected Christ. They didn't believe Christ was the messiah that had been in the prophecies. BUT YES they were not Christians.

Christ was the ultimate sacrifice. He was the final and end all sacrifice that would regain mankind their promised eternal life. Christ took on the sin of mankind so we could inherit that eternal life.

Now because the place of the sacrifices was destroyed in 70 AD that is when those sacrifices ceased. So now we look again at Daniel 12

11 "From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days.

So if the sacrifice was abolished in 70 AD when the temple was destroyed, the abomination would appear 1290 days from that. ( It doesn't say if it is before or after) If the abomination appears then the people flee Judea. People could flee from Judea in 70 AD but there has never been a Judea to flee from since then. That abomination could appear in the HOly Place of the Jerusalem Temple up to 70 AD, but never after that. There was a Holy Place in that temple as it says here: Hebrews 9

1Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. 2A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand, the table and the consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place.

So that takes us back one more time to who the generation was in the question of this thread. The generation of Christ Himself.

John

 

[Darrell dunn]

The key is in Daniel, The words are sealed till the time of the END.

The end did not happen 2000 yrs ago.

Mans days shall number 3 score and 10 or 70 yrs.

1948 + 70 = 2018

1948 + 20 = 1967 fighting age

1967 june 7 + 38.8 yrs or 14000 days= Oct 4 2005 wondering in wilderness. Check savedbygrace@wonderful1.com click on 14000 days

Oct. 4 2005 = Feast of Trumpets

1948 + 20 + 38.8 + 10 = 2015 all in one generation.

 

[noblej6]

Hi Darrell,

Strange that you wouldnt count man's days as 120 years.

1948 was 57 years ago. Most who use this argument also hold to a 7 year trib as well. That takes us to 64. The bible says this generation SEES the things. I think it would be safe to say that a five year old kid would see and sort of comprehend ...that takes us to 69. Youll find out next year if this argument has any merit.

The end did not happen 2000 yrs ago.

Actually the bible says it did....the end of the old covenant. Hebrews 9:26.

noble6

 

[Cameron]

I'm posting this here too, since it has direct bearing on this conversation.

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

Noibody has ever shown me any reason to consider that THIS generation of the Olivet Discourse is any different than the THIS generation of Matthew 23.

Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples:

(It is very important to remember the context and audience. The religious leaders were there too since He gave them the “woes to youâ€Â)

Mat 23:35 So all the righteous blood shed on the earth will be charged to you, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.
Mat 23:36 I assure you: All these things will come on this generation!
Mat 23:37 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem! The city who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her. How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, yet you were not willing!
Mat 23:38 See, your house is left to you desolate.
Mat 23:39 For I tell you, you will never see Me again until you say, Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!"

(who knows what else Jesus may have said, but what is clear, is that it was in public during the day and in the temple since Matthew 24:1 has Jesus and the disciples leaving for the Mt. of Olives. My point will simply be to show that Jesus did say more about Jerusalem and its fall while still in the Temple and in public on this very subject.)

Luk 20:1 One day as He was teaching the people in the temple complex and proclaiming the good news, the chief priests and the scribes, with the elders, came up….

(The point to note here is that Luke is recording the same Temple discourse that Matthew 22 & 23 is recording. Both have the “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s dialogue and the widow and the mite, etc. The fact that they are not exactly the same speaks to the fact that Jesus said a lot more than was able to be recorded. If Jesus taught for hours then a small Gospel book by our standards would have to carefully pick and choose what to include.)

Luk 21:37 During the day, He was teaching in the temple complex, but in the evening He would go out and spend the night on what is called the Mount of Olives.
Luk 21:38 Then all the people would come early in the morning to hear Him in the temple complex

(Just so you know how extensive Jesus’ teachings were, Luke feels that it is necessary to state this fact that Jesus came in the morning to teach during the day. And when they day was over, He went to the Mt of Olives for the night. So if Jesus conservatively taught 6 hours out of 12 available hours in the Jewish day, just how many equivalent N.T pages would it fill if recorded verbatim?)

Luk 21:5 As some were talking about the temple complex, how it was adorned with beautiful stones and gifts dedicated to God, He said,

(Do you see anywhere in this passage where it is recorded that Jesus left the Temple? Luke who is so careful about what He states in Luke 21:37-38 doesn’t mention that Jesus is on his way to leave when the question is asked about the buildings. After all Jerusalem’s house is to be left desolate as Matthew recorded. The buildings were beautiful. Jesus felt the need to respond that they would crumble. And then the disciples asked when?

So, we could say that Jesus decided to ignore them from that point on and walked back in silence to the Mt of Olives to retire for the night before the dialogue continues. But is that who Jesus is? Is Jesus going to ignore the question of His disciples into whom He is pouring His life and teaching? Is He going to make them ask again as if He were aloof or in a dour mood? This is Jesus’ last week and the imparting of important last minute teaching was imperative and I will argue that Jesus taught as many hours as humanly were possible during the day in the Temple and did not pass up any questions or opportunities to extend His teaching. Would this be the Jesus you would expect? Of course alternatively, the disciples could have been the quite ones and mulled it over until later that night and Luke just failed to mention it.)

Mat 24:3 While He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached Him privately…

Mar 13:3 While He was sitting on the Mount of Olives across from the temple complex, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked Him privately,

(The issue is that you have to come to terms with the when and where of Luke 21. Did Jesus teach one in public and the other in private? If Luke was so diligent about recording Luke 1:1-4 and Luke 21:37-38,then why would he miss such an important transition from public to private and from the Temple to the Mt of Olives?)

Mar 4:34 And He did not speak to them without a parable. Privately, however, He would explain everything to His own disciples.

(There were patterns in Jesus’ teaching that reflected the public teaching and the private explanation. See also Matt 13:36)

(My point would be that Matthew 24 is part of a private explanation of what was taught in public in Matthew 23 and Luke20-21.)

(Now just so you know I’m not trying to hide anything, the weakest part of my argument that I am still working through is the apparent parallelism in structure between the three accounts of Luke 21, Matthew 24, Mark 13. Though there are significant variations, particularly in the discussion of armies surrounding Jerusalem verses the abomination of desolation. Did Jesus really explain it to the disciples using the same general outline? In other instances there were more marks that were indicative of explanation, but that doesn’t mean that Matthew and mark are devoid of the either.)

Mat 24:8 All these events are the beginning of birth pains.

Mar 13:8 …These are the beginning of birth pains.

(This explanation is not recorded in Luke)

Mat 24:15 …let the reader understand.
Mark 13:14 …let the reader understand.

(This admonishment to understand the meaning is not recorded in Luke.)

Mat 24:9 "Then they will…
Mar 13:9 …They will…

Vs.

Luk 21:12 But before all these things, they will….

(The timing is opposite in Luke.)

(Matt24:22-28 parallels Mark 13:20-23. And where these are supposed to parallel with Luke, there is one verse, Luke 21:24. Rather than speaking of the necessity to cut the days short or to watch out for false christs, Luke simply speaks of the time of the Gentiles. One could say that Matthew and mark provide new and different information as an explanation thus showing that in at least three places Jesus is providing explanation while no such explanations are available in Luke 21 other than Luke’s observation of verses 37-38.)

(There are also a lot of things in Luke that are not recorded in Matthew or Mark or are recorded differently. Some have argued that Luke was more precise and that he just interpreted it all for us? Is this your Bible? Is this your Bible where the very disciples cannot write what Jesus meant and that an outsider like Luke is able to do an investigation into these matters per the thesis of the book and have more inspired and clearer words from the Holy Spirit? Rather than deal with these oddities and uncomfortable doctrinal issues that comparing these passages brings up, is it not more likely that Jesus had plenty of opportunity to teach what I takes you 5 minutes to read many times in one day if needed? Isn’t it more likely that Jesus took whatever time remained in his sojourn on earth to explain not only answer their questions but to explain it ten times over if need be? We do know as a fact that Jesus spoke of these things at least one more time. Luke 17:22-37 records a similar teaching. )

…recognize that He is near--at the door!
Mat 24:34 I assure you: This generation will certainly not pass away until all these things take place.

…know that He is near--at the door!
Mar 13:30 I assure you: This generation will certainly not pass away until all these things take place.

Vs.

…recognize that the kingdom of God is near.
Luk 21:32 I assure you: This generation will certainly not pass away until all things take place.

(So my main point would not to convince you that “this generation†is speaking literally of a 1st century generation in one place and of the generation that sees these things happen in another as others have argued from context. No, my point would be to show you that you can also not say that they are definitely the same generation on the basis of the variations between Luke 21 and the private teachings on Matthew 24 and Mark 13.)

 

[noblej6]

Hi Cameron,

Argument well presented.

However, Jesus did say to that brood of vipers that all would fall on THIS GENERATION. There isn't a man living that can honestly say that the actual generation Jesus was talking to wasn't the intended generation. Anyone can conjur up a story to place it on some other generation and I'll just readily agree that some other generation other that Jesus' was the one.

That gives us a very simple either / or situation. Either it is that first century generation or it is not.

Your point about Jesus saying more than recorded is true and John outlines that in Chapter 20 last verse. (forget the verse #)

You make reference to the fact that perhaps the question is asked in different places which may have some effect, but you would have to explain why Mark recorded the question identical to Luke.

The big thing still is that all three writers recorded two extremely important statements exactly the same, the fact that Jeus would come in glory and all the things would happen in this generation. Matthew lists the question different. Luke doesn't include the coming in the question , but if the coming is part of the destruction Luke and Mark are absolutely correct in how they record the question.

You mention some points which you say point out the futuristic return.

is it not more likely that Jesus had plenty of opportunity to teach what I takes you 5 minutes to read many times in one day if needed? Isn’t it more likely that Jesus took whatever time remained in his sojourn on earth to explain not only answer their questions but to explain it ten times over if need be?

Is it not more likely that the coming and the end are 'things' which happen within this generation which sees the destruction of the temple. That is what it says. To make it future one must explain why the words that come off the page say something other that the immediately obvious. If I wrote a sentence such as follows:

I like the color of this paint, you would know what I meant. If I wrote a sentence which said "I have never had as much fun as I had at this event.." you would know I was using a visual aid to demonstrate what the event was. Where is the visual aid in Jesus speach? To use the fig tree you have to get me to make the same guess at the meaning of the fig tree story and I won't. It makes perfect sense exactly as written.

I want you to show me how futurists separate these two thoughts between Luke and the other two writers.

15"Therefore when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place let the reader understand),

16then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains.

When the people see the abomination in the Holy Place they must flee from Judea.

What does Luke tell them to do?

Luke tells them to:

20"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near.

21"Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city;

They must flee from Judea.to the mountains. Now considering that this conversation started out in answer to a question posed to Jesus after the exact same prophecy Jesus made about the temple and this conversation includes the statementt that Jesus will come on the clouds and that this generation will see all these things, plus the fact that after 70 AD there is no place called Judea...puff, puff...NO, I won't buy anything different here, this is in reference to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD and there really is no doubt about it.

Here's how I would say it works.
Somewhere it is mentioned that preterists spiritualize certain verses and literalize others and that isn't exactly true. Certain verses indicate spiritual circumstances. The coming of the son of man occurs in the spiritual realm, not the physical or earthly realm. That is what scripture tells us. Because the story of the Olivet Discourse is fist century it follows that the events are invisible to the mortals alive at the time. The resurrections are in the ivisible, spiritual realm involving Heaven. A partial preterist won't agree with that, but I can definately show verses that say that.

Cameron, you use these six items, Daniel 9, which haven't come to pass yet to base the future parousia on. That 490 years or possibly only 70 weeks was not a prophecy in the first place as I see it. I see it as a directive. A directive which was ignored by the way. The people didn't get rid of sin in the required time. Jesus had to come and get rid of sin for us and then God's wrath took care of the generration of vipers that wouldn't accept the son. 'This' generation of Matthew 23. I see that as the exact same 'this' generation of Matthew 24.

Here's probably the first argument to show first generation.

14"This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.

Then Paul says:

Col 1

23if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.

You and I both know what the Greek meanings are here, we've debated this a thousand times. It says what it says. Why would I want to consider a meaning other than the obvious. Why would I consider a meaning other than the obvious when the obvious reconciles perfectly with the other verses I mentioned?

1 Cor 15
51Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed 52in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

Here, Paul, an inspired writer of God's word, says WE will all be changed at the last trump. There is absolutely no possible way that this phrase can mean anything else but that Paul and ALL he was writing to would do one of two things....not sleep or else be changed. Mankind is changed at the last trump or the parousia. The parousia was in Pauls generation.

I'll stop here and let you comment on these ideas.

noble6

 

[Cameron]

Either it is that first century generation or it is not.

I think I demonstrated how we can not be dogmatic about making an equivalent assertion. As you’ll acknowledge, making such a 1:1 correlation is more of a Greek way of thinking than Hebraic.

For just as you give the example of how this can be seen in a certain context, it can also be applied and imbued with different meaning depending on context.

I can point at the accuser and say this is the man. And then I can say when you see this man run away.

Two different tenses; one present, one future.

I happen to see the natural future understanding in Matthew 24 as the primary intended meaning:

Mat 24:33 So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is…

The tense of “this†is clearly set in a future context.

you would have to explain why Mark recorded the question identical to Luke.

We all know Mark is Peter’s gospel presentation to the Romans. We know that Peter was also focused on the fact that Andrew, Peter’s brother, accompanied the inner three to privately talk with Jesus. We also know that whoever asked the original question was not identified. I would suggest that it was Andrew who asked the question and that is why he was present with the inner three. So just like Peter would identify a blind beggar by name while a former tax-collector like Matthew would just mention that some bums where bugging Jesus, Peter is focusing on his brother’s original inquiry. And the reason why the refined questions are not mentioned is that peter judged that the multiple questions would be disruptive to the goal of the Gospel he was preaching so that the hearers would not be confused about who the Son of God was and is. Mark is full of examples of where Peter avoids mentioning things about himself that Matthew included so as not to derail the conversation. Should we condemn Peter for focusing, IMO, on what his brother asked or for staying focus on the task to the point that even the Roman centurion declared Jesus as the Son of God?

I want you to show me how futurists separate these two thoughts between Luke and the other two writers.

1) The understanding of Daniel part of what Jesus said revealing two different AODs
2) The pattern of types and ultimate fulfillments

70 AD did not fulfill 168 BC’s type Jesus included in the command to understand of Mt 24:15.

70 AD fulfilled the type of 609-586 BC when the temple was destroyed on the very same day; Tish’bav.

Therefore, IMO, if one is public it is directed to a general audience of believers, future believers, present believers and the lost. For we know the other was private. And as I mentioned before there is sufficient difference between the Luke 21 and others to raise an eyebrow of wonder. And Luke certainly does not deflect this wonder in how he begins Luke 21 and ends Luke 21.

Somewhere it is mentioned that preterists spiritualize…

The pattern of restoration follows the Christian life. So with regards to the near/far futurist principle, one sees that reflected in the Christian life:
Spiritual “near†fulfillment is that I am a Christian.
Physical “far†fulfillment is that I will be physically resurrected to a like body of Christ; physical.

So now the “Church Ageâ€Â, and even 70 AD reflect a spiritual exodus of sorts in the “near†sense to be followed by the physical reality. This pattern of man first, creation follows was set up by God. Man sinned, God cursed the earth. As man is restoredo a “new creatureâ€Â, there will be a “new heavens and earthâ€Â. Futurism makes plenty of sense.

 

[Cameron]

Here, Paul, an inspired writer of God's word, says WE will all be changed at the last trump. There is absolutely no possible way that this phrase can mean anything else but that Paul and ALL he was writing to would do one of two things....not sleep or else be changed. Mankind is changed at the last trump or the parousia. The parousia was in Pauls generation.

We will all not sleep can easily be a hyperbole just as "every creature under heaven" or "Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. "

Rom 12:4 Now as we have many parts in one body, and all the parts do not have the same function,
Rom 12:5 in the same way we who are many are one body in Christ and individually members of one another.

I doubt Paul was exclusive to the 1st Century here.

 

[noblej6]

Hi Cameron,

We will all not sleep can easily be a hyperbole just as "every creature under heaven" or "Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. "

Hyperbole exists in the bible for sure. I don't know if it is in every creature under Heaven or not. God, I assume, can talk to the animals, but I sure don't know. I do know that this verse would still include whoever it was that was intended to hear that gospel before the end.

Let's analize 1 Cor 15:51,2

51Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed 52in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

First we learn that the mystery of God that is mentioned in Rev 10:7 is that we will not all sleep.

7But in the days when the seventh angel is about to sound his trumpet, the mystery of God will be accomplished, just as he announced to his servants the prophets."

However, we will all be changed. So the change has to do with the sleep.

We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed. This happens at the last trumpet which is at the parousia.

Here it is.. at the parousia we will all be changed, the dead will be raised but we will all be changed. If Paul died before the parousia he would have to sleep and be raised as part of the dead. Because Paul knew all these things would happen in this generation, he felt confident enough to say we will not all sleep thinking he may still be alive at that parousia.

You know this is so flatly basic it is dificult to put it into words. We will all be changed. Whether Paul is alive or dead he will be changed, but some of the we will not have to sleep. Actually there is no other way toi read the verse at all. That is what it says.
If the parousia was to be in 70 AD Paul's WE would not have to all sleep. If the parousia was now they all WOULD have to sleep. This really is a no brainer.

happen to see the natural future understanding in Matthew 24 as the primary intended meaning:

Mat 24:33 So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is…

The tense of “this†is clearly set in a future context.

Well yes, considering the Olivet was in 33? AD and the parousia was 70 it was future as spoken and would necessarily reflect futurism in the wording.

1) The understanding of Daniel part of what Jesus said revealing two different AODs

Daniel said this:

11 "From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days.

The sacrifices ceased in 70 AD. Well, let's put it this way, where are there daily sacrifices now. Where were the daily sacrifices 1290 days ago. There was no sacrifices since the temple was destroyed.

The army surrounded Jerusalem within 1290 days of that destruction so that fits. Nero was a commander of that situation for some time and his name can be brought out to 666 apparently, so that fits. There is no Holy Place left after the tempole was destroyed so that fits with 70 AD, there was no Judea to flee from after 70 AD so that fits. What doesn't fit?

2) The pattern of types and ultimate fulfillments

It is only man's guess that there would be a type and pattern of this event.

70 AD did not fulfill 168 BC’s type Jesus included in the command to understand of Mt 24:15.

As I pointed out above Daniel referred to tha abomination in more than one place. Besides it is only a guess this has to be a repoeat in the first place.
Matthew 24:15 says this:
15"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Danielâ€â€let the reader understandâ€â€

Which is the parallel to this in Luke.

20"When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near.

I'll prove that the verse is the parallel for you.

The sequense of events leading up to the coming of the som of man ofn the clouds is as follows:
1) abomination appears in the Holy Place
2) there is a flight of the people out of Judea
3) great tribulation
4) celestial display which includes
5) the parousia

Now I will take some events from Lukes account of the conversation and we get.
5)27At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory
4) 25"There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars.
3)There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people.
2)21Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains,

And then there it is.... 20"When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near.

herefore, IMO, if one is public it is directed to a general audience of believers, future believers, present believers and the lost. For we know the other was private. And as I mentioned before there is sufficient difference between the Luke 21 and others to raise an eyebrow of wonder. And Luke certainly does not deflect this wonder in how he begins Luke 21 and ends Luke 21.

As I showed you above in the important area of the conversation there is no difference. I contend there was no difference in the question either because the end' and the 'coming' are 'things' that will foretell the destruction of the temple.

No one has given an alternative yet have they?

The pattern of restoration follows the Christian life. So with regards to the near/far futurist principle, one sees that reflected in the Christian life:
Spiritual “near†fulfillment is that I am a Christian.
Physical “far†fulfillment is that I will be physically resurrected to a like body of Christ; physical.

I have asked for verses that illustrate this physical resurrection before and can't remember what was put up. I se it as spiritual, invisible , heavenly not physical.

So now the “Church Ageâ€Â, and even 70 AD reflect a spiritual exodus of sorts in the “near†sense to be followed by the physical reality. This pattern of man first, creation follows was set up by God. Man sinned, God cursed the earth. As man is restored to a “new creatureâ€Â, there will be a “new heavens and earthâ€Â. Futurism makes plenty of sense.

Let's consider the all these things happen in this generation verse.

You may recall years ago the main argument of futurists was that it was a dual propjhecy. Actually your near/far leans a bit that way yet. Anyway eventually people realized that something that had not happened before in all creation and never would again would mean ONE.

Then it came to the ones that actually saw the 'things' listed happening.

Well, that is true but true if it was Jesus generation as well. Whoever saw the things.
The line " It hasn't happened yet" has been used all along. However, there was a flight of the people out of Judea and there was an desolation of the temple and there was a time of distress during that rebellion of 70 AD and the Romn army can fit all of the scripture.

Abiout the only reason to look around for alternative meanings is because people would rather thingk this is all future. It is also impossible to know if "it happened yet" if it was in 70 AD because if it did happen then the coming and the resurrection was in the spiritual heavenly realm and no mortal cn see it anyway.

Lately we have seen the fig tree argument emerge to explain the generation. At least many here will live long enough to learn for sure that that idea isn't right.

My personal favorite is the building of a third temple. That has promise because people are slowly learning what the bible actually says and they realize that there has to be a temple for this Olivet prophecy to fit. Hence, they conjur up a third temple because the real one is gone.

So I don't see the futurist idea as making any sense at all, but I sure enjoy discussing it.

How about this ?

Matthew 24
23At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it.

We also have this verse....

7Look, he is coming with the clouds,
and every eye will see him,
even those who pierced him;

So how is it that every eye sees Jesus coming but nobody ever says a word about it?

noble6

 

[Cameron]

Col 1:16 because by Him everything was created, in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.
Col 1:17 He is before all things, and by Him all things hold together.
Col 1:18 He is also the head of the body, the church; He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He might come to have first place in everything.
Col 1:19 For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him,
Col 1:20 and through Him to reconcile everything to Himself by making peace through the blood of His cross--whether things on earth or things in heaven.
Col 1:21 And you were once alienated and hostile in mind because of your evil actions.
Col 1:22 But now He has reconciled you by His physical body through His death, to present you holy, faultless, and blameless before Him--
Col 1:23 if indeed you remain grounded and steadfast in the faith, and are not shifted away from the hope of the gospel that you heard. This gospel has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and I, Paul, have become a minister of it.

I do know that this verse would still include whoever it was that was intended to hear that gospel before the end.

OK – hyperbole – but what you really mean is the Roman world. Can you say that Paul mean the Roman world too? Or is it that Paul meant the whole-wide world as he knows it? The difference is significance. It can be demonstrated that at times the “whole word/creation means just that in a strict literal sense. Think of Col 1:16 in the same conversation. It can also be shown to be narrowly focused on just the Roman world such as in the census of Luke 2. It can also shown to be just hyperbole that is context driven. Given the context of Col 1, I would say that Paul was simply saying the entire world as he can grasp it and is able to reach. We shouldn’t read more into it.


1 Cor. 15

First of all, the trumpet of 1 Cor 15 is not in reference to Revelation. Even the most conservative Preterist date has Revelation dated to 68 AD. That puts it close to 15 years after 1 Corinthians, I still prefer the later date of 96 AD.

The trumpet is in reference to all the other references to trumpets that were available in this context:

Mat 24:31 He will send out His angels with a loud trumpet, and…

1Th 4:16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the archangel's voice, and with the trumpet of God,

The phrase “trump of God†is not without significance. For the trumpets blown in Revelation, had it been known before John, were blown by angels. God blows a trumpet only in one other place in the Bible! It is that event that preterists say has no or little relevance. It part of what Jesus was referring to in Mathew 24:15. Ah – now you know it; 168 BC. But instead of Daniel who prophesied God blowing the trumpet it was Zechariah. Just as they had completed the Temple, they were warned tat the “sons of Greece†would need to be fought and that God would blow the trumpet in their defense. Futurists point to this event as a precursor to what the Antichrist will do as similar to what Antiochus did do.

Zec 9:13 For I will bend Judah as My bow; I will fill that bow with Ephraim. I will rouse your sons, Zion, against your sons, Greece. I will make you like a warrior's sword.
Zec 9:14 Then the LORD will appear over them, and His arrow will fly like lightning. The Lord GOD will sound the trumpet and advance with the southern storms.

Even though 1 & 2 Macabees are not considered Scripture by some, they do record the events of that time in more detail.

First we learn that the mystery of God that is mentioned in Rev 10:7 is that we will not all sleep.

Regarding Revelation 10:7 and 11:15 & 11:19 , I see as corresponding with the 6 things that are to be completed by the 70 Sevens. I believe that these three passages speak directly to this as a literal fulfillment and that the end of the 70 Sevens is yet future ending with the 7th trumpet at which point Jesus begins to reign in the MK beginning in Zion.

We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed.

Like I said before it is a corporate “weâ€Â, inclusive of the whole body of Christ of any era as I demonstrated with the quote from Romans 12:4-5.

Actually there is no other way toi read the verse at all.

I know this is big for you, please think over my response in the other post above.

Daniel said this:

11 "From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days.

Daniel also said this:

Dan 8:13 Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to the one who spoke, "For how long is the vision concerning the regular burnt offering, the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled underfoot?"
Dan 8:14 And he said to me, "For 2,300 evenings and mornings.Then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state."

And this:

Dan 11:31 His forces will rise up and desecrate the temple fortress. They will abolish the daily sacrifice and set up the abomination of desolation.

The sacrifices ceased in 70 AD. Well, let's put it this way, where are there daily sacrifices now. Where were the daily sacrifices 1290 days ago. There was no sacrifices since the temple was destroyed.

The army surrounded Jerusalem within 1290 days of that destruction so that fits. Nero was a commander of that situation for some time and his name can be brought out to 666 apparently, so that fits. There is no Holy Place left after the tempole was destroyed so that fits with 70 AD, there was no Judea to flee from after 70 AD so that fits. What doesn't fit?

Actually, it was rumored that Nero would come back and retake Rome and Domitian was generally referred to as the 2nd Nero.

Regarding the timing of 1290 days, is that Josephus?

Is an abomination of desolation the same as the desolation of a city? Similar, yes, but the same, no.

Nero’s name adds up to 666 in Hebrew from his Latin name being transliterated. We all know how “transliteration†works. How many different English spellings have you seen for Momar Quadafi, Gadaphi, Kadafi?

O f course. The temple being destroyed fits with 70 AD, because that is when it happened on the same day as it happened in 586 BC. Unfortunately, the 70 AD destruction does not fit with the New Covenant of Jesus broken body and blood spilt for us.

But ultimately I understand you and I accept much of what is said in a spiritual sense of reality. It may not be too much different that what you think, however, I see a future literal fulfillment also patterned in Scripture and I see not need for that not to come to pass.

I'll prove that the verse (Luke 21:20 vs Matt 24:15) is the parallel for you

The sequense of events leading up to the coming of the som of man ofn the clouds is as follows:

Actually, you are wrong here. I explained in the previous post that the sequences were different between Luke 21 and Matthew 24/Mark 13.

Luke 21:12 is in the opposite tense of Matthew 24:9.

We can’t have one be “before†and the other “afterâ€Â. And it is this difference among others between Luke 21 and Matthew 24/mark 13 that explain the differences applicable to different target audiences.

I contend there was no difference in the question either because the end' and the 'coming' are 'things' that will foretell the destruction of the temple.

Well then I figure you’ll have no problem with Luke 21:12 vs. Matthew 24:9. So what can I say, if you are more convinced in your argument to avoid such language trivialities, then why continue the dialogue?

physical resurrection

Luk 24:39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."
Luk 24:40 And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.
Luk 24:41 And while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said to them, "Have you anything here to eat?"
Luk 24:42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish,
Luk 24:43 and he took it and ate before them.


Joh 11:23 Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again."
Joh 11:24 Martha said to him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day."
Joh 11:25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live,

I think Lazarus raised physically.

Abiout the only reason to look around for alternative meanings is because people would rather thingk this is all future.

Actually there are many more. There was no ark of the beast and no statue indicative of the pattern of what a real abomination of desolation is. It only refers to the Temple. And it is not about OC/NC or OT/NC, it is about thumbing one’s nose in defiance to God and usurping His place.

Consistency is still an issue, on one hand, preterists want a literal fulfillment to some parts and then for no contextual reason decide to break into spiritual interpretations:
The great trib was real, but the sun, moon and stars not, the destruction of Jerusalem was real, but Jesus coming for his own so that all would see him not. It’s kind of “schizo†to me.

And who are “these people†who “would rather think this is all future� Might I suggest the Early church fathers thought so. Those who were received the faith after the Apostolic age, continued to look for a future AC to persecute the Church. They continued to debate the meaning of 666. Do you think that the disciples could have taught their Christians disciples better? What gives with the huge disparity? Here’s just a sample:

The Didache (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) (Ca. 70 AD to 120 AD)
Watch…be ye ready, for ye know not what hour in which our Lord cometh.
…in the last time. For in the last days false prophets …lawlessness increaseth…betray one another …, and then shall appear the world-deceiver as Son of God, and shall do signs and wonders, and the earth shall be delivered into his hands, and he shall do iniquitous things which have never yet come to pass since the beginning.
Fire of trial … stumble…perish…endure in faith…then shall appear the signs of truth; first the sign of an out-spreading in heaven; then the sign of the sound of the trumpet; and third, the resurrection of the dead…the Lord shall come and all His saints with Him. The world shall see the Lord coming upon the clouds of Heaven.

The Epistle of Barnabas (Ca. 100-120 AD)
The final stumbling block (or source of danger) approaches…in these last days…we also withstand coming sources of danger…take heed lest resting at our ease…we should fall asleep in our sins, and the wicked prince, acquiring power…

Dialogue with Trypho (Ca. 150-165 AD)
…that two advents of Christ…, but the other, in which He shall come from heaven with glory, when the man of apostasy, who speaks strange things against the Most High, shall venture to do unlawful deeds on the earth against us the Christians, who, having learned the true worship of God from the law,…

The Pastor of Hermas (Ca. 160 AD)
…put through the fire, will be purified by means of it….This then is the type of the great tribulation that is to come.

Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics (Ca. 190-210 AD)
…than will Antichrist persecute her at that day by the cruelty of his attacks, except that persecution makes even martyrs,[but] heresy apostates.

Ireneaus, Against Heresies in Book 5 (Ca. 182-188 AD) (discusses 666 issue)
And for this cause tribulation is necessary for those who are saved…
Another danger…shall overtake those who falsely presume that they know the name of the Antichrist. For these men assume one [number], when this [Antichrist] shall come having another, they will be easily led away by him, as supposing him not to be the expected one, who must be guarded against…It is therefore more certain, and less hazardous, to await the fulfillment of the prophecy…many names can be found possessing the number mentioned…But he indicates the number of the name now, that when this man comes we may avoid him, being aware who he is.

So if you don’t mind living with “after = “before†and other oddities of Luke’s lack to fulfill Luke 1:1-4,,then I guess you’d say that the Church was wrong until preterism came along and was popularized by the RCC in the 1500s.

How could the early church leaders miss what the modern day preterist claim happened in 70AD? Who is in a better position to know? Why wasn’t the preterist idea widely propagated if it supposed to be true? Futurism was the original position of th early Church.

Hence, they conjur up a third temple because the real one is gone.

1948 must be quite a nuisance to preterists. Oh, I know, they all say no big deal, it is just a coincidence. But the truth is, the Temple and whether sacrifices happen and can stop is not the main issue. What makes an abomination of desolation is the affront that it is to God, what it represents. No building is “really†sacred; they are all but shadows according to Hebrews.

 

[noblej6]

Hi Cameron,

I would say that Paul was simply saying the entire world as he can grasp it and is able to reach. We shouldn’t read more into it.

14And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

world here can mean what in the Greek?...oikoumene

Where did Jesus instruct the 12 to go to proclaim the gospel in Matthew 10? What did Jesus have to say about them getting thru all the cities before he returned?

Matthew 10
23When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

The trumpet is in reference to all the other references to trumpets that were available in this context:

I've seen this argument come out a lot recently and really it doesn't matter if Revelation was ever written at all and even less if Paul never saw it. What Paul or any bible writer inspired by God did was put down the word of God as God intended it. As I've said before John recorded the exact conversation of Martha and Jesus but they were alone during the conversation. These writers didn't have to study the word or the history it was given to them as evidence here:

Mark 13
11Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit.

Futurists point to this event as a precursor to what the Antichrist will do as similar to what Antiochus did do.

To answer this I will need to know if you consider the man of lawlessnes which is to appear in the temple poclaiming himself to be a god to be an actual man? Is the man of lawlessness actually the antichrist?

Regarding Revelation 10:7 and 11:15 & 11:19 , I see as corresponding with the 6 things that are to be completed by the 70 Sevens. I believe that these three passages speak directly to this as a literal fulfillment and that the end of the 70 Sevens is yet future ending with the 7th trumpet at which point Jesus begins to reign in the MK beginning in Zion.

I agree that it is when Jesus begins His everlasting reign, but I see a spiritual invisible kingdom of Heaven where Jesus is and always will be.

I' d say that is after the 70 sevens, but it is not significnt to me.

Dan 8:14 And he said to me, "For 2,300 evenings and mornings.Then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state."

And this:

Dan 11:31 His forces will rise up and desecrate the temple fortress. They will abolish the daily sacrifice and set up the abomination of desolation.

Wasn't the origonal temple rebuilt? There was a destroyed temple in Daniel's time was there not?

Didn't an army from Rome come and destroy the temple that was rebuilt and cause the sacrifices to cease.

[quote:136f8]Actually, you are wrong here. I explained in the previous post that the sequences were different between Luke 21 and Matthew 24/Mark 13.

How can there be differences when all thre inspired writers include in the sequence," They will see Jesu come in Hi glory....."
How many conversations were there that included these sentences?
1)They will see Jesus come in glory......

All these thing will happen in this generation>......

Luke 21:12 is in the opposite tense of Matthew 24:9

Luke 21:12
12"But before all this, they will lay hands on you and persecute you. They will deliver you to synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors, and all on account of my name.

Matthew 24
9"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me

Both those verses are future. Future to when Jesus said them, future to when the bible writers heard them but not necessarily future to you and I.

So what can I say, if you are more convinced in your argument to avoid such language trivialities, then why continue the dialogue?

I would like to continue the discussion because I see incorrect doctrine that I would like the readers here to be able to sift for themselves.

I think Lazarus raised physically.

Of course Larurus was brought back to life physically. That was not a resurrection to etenal physical life because Lazurus later physically died.

Consistency is still an issue, on one hand, preterists want a literal fulfillment to some parts and then for no contextual reason decide to break into spiritual interpretations:
The great trib was real, but the sun, moon and stars not, the destruction of Jerusalem was real, but Jesus coming for his own so that all would see him not. It’s kind of “schizo†to me.

Once again I will state that I do not have any concerns if what I interpret the bible to say follows the lines of this preteism or an ism of any kind. I am a non-evangelical protestant that reads what the bible says and doesn't care about following the predermined doctrine of any man.

The great trib was real and the second coming of Christ will be very real for me as well. My interpretation is that the second coming for me occurs in the spiritual realm at my death. That is the majority opinion of Christians altho the evangelical movement is quickly becoming all that is available for the newly interested to see on TV or read on the net.

How could the early church leaders miss what the modern day preterist claim happened in 70AD? Who is in a better position to know? Why wasn’t the preterist idea widely propagated if it supposed to be true? Futurism was the original position of the early Church.

I use the bible not the works of men.

As you mentioned the bible uses hyperbole, the bible uses parables(ususally explained) the bible uses symbolism. I base everything back to what Jesus Himself said.

1948 must be quite a nuisance to preterists. Oh, I know, they all say no big deal, it is just a coincidence. But the truth is, the Temple and whether sacrifices happen and can stop is not the main issue. What makes an abomination of desolation is the affront that it is to God, what it represents. No building is “really†sacred; they are all but shadows according to Hebrews.

What makes an abomination would be possibly an advancing army and there is no doubt that the army from Rome caused desolation in and around Jerusalem in 70 AD.
1948 would only matter to those who accept man's meaning of the fig story in the Olivet. I take the fig story to mean exactly what it says about summer coming after spring.

noble6[/quote:136f8]