JoshebB
Active Member
Full- or partial- ?Ah..... View attachment 1962 yeppers.
Full- or partial- ?Ah..... View attachment 1962 yeppers.
That is incorrect. The Greek is "genea," not "aioni."
Preterism is irrelevant. The text states what the text states and the text is either read exactly as written or it is not. The salient point it that the question asked is being ignored due to a selective use of scripture and a blatant refusal to consider and accept everything that is written about the time of the events listed in this op. Blatant abuses of scripture are present in the defense of this op and the refusal to answer the one question asked.
For example, the very first item mentioned in this op is the emergence of the antichrist, yet there is absolutely no mention of any antichrist in Matthew 24. It is, therefore, completely inappropriate to use Matthew 24:34 to say no one knows when the antichrist will appear. It's a gross mishandling of scripture.
It has NOTHING to do with preterism and everything to do with
I think you have confused verse 34 with some other text. There are more than three dozen different translations listed in that link and not a single one of them translated genea as "age." Even when genea is translated as "age" it is understood as an age relative to the lives of those in question. It never carries the same meaning as aioni.
You just committed your own exposure of error:For example, the very first item mentioned in this op is the emergence of the antichrist, yet there is absolutely no mention of any antichrist in Matthew 24.
I think you have confused verse 34 with some other text. There are more than three dozen different translations listed in that link and not a single one of them translated genea as "age." Even when genea is translated as "age" it is understood as an age relative to the lives of those in question. It never carries the same meaning as aioni.
Preterism is irrelevant. The text states what the text states and the text is either read exactly as written or it is not. The salient point it that the question asked is being ignored due to a selective use of scripture and a blatant refusal to consider and accept everything that is written about the time of the events listed in this op. Blatant abuses of scripture are present in the defense of this op and the refusal to answer the one question asked.
For example, the very first item mentioned in this op is the emergence of the antichrist, yet there is absolutely no mention of any antichrist in Matthew 24. It is, therefore, completely inappropriate to use Matthew 24:34 to say no one knows when the antichrist will appear. It's a gross mishandling of scripture.
It has NOTHING to do with preterism and everything to do with
NeitherFull- or partial- ?
The commentary for the above is at the end of the block of scripture comparison.Yes, he did say that.
That is not all he said. He also said the disciples (the ones to whom he was speaking that day) would see it. He also said it would happen in "this generation," the generation of those to whom he was speaking. The "this generation" is conjugated in the near demonstrative so it CANNOT be made to be about the far, far distant future two millennia later.
That is your depection. Christ's return is ALWAYS imminent, precisely because we do not know when. And, if you have been paying attention to what dispensationalists have been saying, there are no prophecies left to be fulfilled before the end times can begin. There are prophecies to be fulfilled DURING the end times, but the curtain is ready to rise at any time. If you have been following the news, they have already reestablished the Levitical priesthood, and apparently even know who the descendant of Aaron alive today is, and they have already performed ceremonies on the temple mount. They have already imported the red heifers necessary to sanctify the people as Aaron did. They have already created all the temple implements, all the priestly vestments/garments, etc. They have been practicing the sacrifices (and have been arrested for it.) There is nothing that says that the temple has to be rebuilt BEFORE the end times begins. (We are in the last days, the end times rolls up the Jesus second coming and begins with the prince of the people in Daniel 9 strengthening a covenant with the many. It ends with his destruction and the salvation of Jerusalem.)The deception within Dispensational Premillennialism is that Christ's return is NOT imminent. It can't actually happen at any time because a whole bunch of stuff has to happen first. Israel has to regain all its territory. The Jews have to build another temple. Then they have to re-establish the Levitical priesthood and the Mosaic Law, and then they have to re-institute animal sacrifices. There's a big bunch of stuff Dispensationalism teaches will have to happen before Jesus returns. Out of one set of words they preach imminence but then they teach the exact opposite position with a different set of words. If Jesus can come right this minute, then EVERYTHING in this op is wrong.
Why did Peter write to explain to the people that God has His own plan, and that He isn't breaking His promise, or being slow with His promise, but is keeping to His will and perfect timing? Why didn't Peter say that when Jesus spoke about an imminent return, He didn't mean it? Instead Peter explained how it isn't God being slow. Peter couldn't say much more because just as Jesus said, no one knows when Jesus will return. Note the parable about the foolish servant, who, not knowing when the master would return, partied, and basically did what he wanted. The master came back by surprise (showing the masters return was always imminent), and caught the servant playing the fool, and punished him. That not knowing when the master was going to return, made the return of the master always imminent. At hand. As such, we are to live as though it could be today, or even tomorrow. That is why scripture keeps pushing to perseverance. No matter what happens, if God tarries some time in the return, do not lose hope, persevere. It will happen.There is absolutely no way to avoid that blatant contradiction! Either all of the stuff listed in this op has to happen first, and imminence is delayed, or the op is wrong.
No, no it does not. That is a blatant lie. (However, there may be fringe elements that do.) Salvation was alwasy by grace through faith. Israel being saved will be like when Paul was saved. Jesus met Paul personally on the road to Damascus. Jesus will personally meet the remnant of Israel at Jersualem, and as Paul recognized Jesus, they will recognize Jesus. Instant regeneration. What follows regeneration? Are you now going to say that regeneration is by works?So..... I, once again, urge you caution defending someone else's op, especially when that person has not bothered to answer the simplest of op-relevant inquiries.
- Dispensationalism says it teaches salvation by grace through faith and not works but its eschatology inescapably results in the opposite.
Also not true. It is true, however, that they put an insane amount of time into something Jesus said is not for us to know. It is one thing to be watching, as Jesus does give the parable of the fig tree, it is another to be preoccupied with it to the point that you may/do lead people astray. We are living on borrowed time in that every prophecy that needs to be fulfilled for the end times to begin, has been fulfilled. Everything depends on what one believes marks the start of the end times. The start of the last week of the world.
- Dispensational Premillennialism teaches the doctrine of imminent return but its eschatology inescapaby necessitates a complete contradiction of that doctrine.
That would be true if dispensationalism did not have a historical tradition going all the way back to the first century. One place I read said the biggest difference between historical premillennialism and dispensational premillennialism, is how much stress is put on the distinction between Israel and the church. Also, the timeframe for Jesus second coming, as taught by the historical premillennialists passed about 1500 years ago.
- Dispensationalism is a new and radically different theology that is irreconcilable with core doctrines the Church has held since its inception. Either Dispensational Premillennialism is correct and 2000 years of Christian thought, doctrine, and practice are wrong, or 2000 years of Christian thinking, doctrine, and practice are correct, and the radically different and irreconcilable newcomer is wrong.
Why isn't what Jesus said enough for you? What do you have against Him that you can't just trust Him, and as it states in many places to include Revelation, persevere? Why do you have to have an answer in order to persevere? Why do you accuse God of subterfuge? He is delaying and Peter told us why. For the sake of the salvation of the elect. It means that out there somewhere, there may be someone who has yet to repent, and God is waiting. What do you have against that? Why do you not trust God? Jesus Himself said that His second coming would be visible. Everyone will see Him, and all the nations of the world will mourn. Do you think that someone would fail to pass that on if it has happened? And a question I don't recall ever getting an answer to, if Jesus kingdom is now, and scripture is clear that it is on Earth, why is the reflection of the Kingdom more in line with Satan being in charge, and not Jesus? The state of a kingdom is a reflection of its ruler. Is Jesus' Kingdom marked by sin, or is Satan's rule/dominion, permitted by God for a short while, marked by sin?And all I would currently like is an actual direct answer to the one question I have asked. When will the events described in this op happen? Please be as specific as you feel comfortable being. Delay is subterfuge. Attempts to change the topic are subterfuge. Attempts at fallacy are subterfuge.
Now, I do not listen to anyone who puts a date on the return of Christ, and I believe that they should be thoroughly condemned if they do so. I give the same answer as Jesus gave. We cannot know the time, and to question about the time is to question Jesus Himself. The answer He gave was in the parable of the foolish servant. His return can be at any time, hence imminent/at hand. Imminent and at hand are not a measure of time, that one can say, oh, that means 5 minutes from now. They are the words you have when you don't have a time. Can you understand that the possible reason that we are told to endure and persevere is that we may be saying His return is imminent for an incredibly long time?Dispensational Premillennialists should all be concerned there exist among them people who make predictions they cannot or will not address in a discussion board. Don't post it if you're going to refuse to discuss it.
So are you a preterist or partial?Yes, he did say that.
That is not all he said. He also said the disciples (the ones to whom he was speaking that day) would see it. He also said it would happen in "this generation," the generation of those to whom he was speaking. The "this generation" is conjugated in the near demonstrative so it CANNOT be made to be about the far, far distant future two millennia later.
It is, therefore, completely inappropriate to select 36 and only verse 36, ignore everything else Jesus said that day and hide behind a selectively singled-out verse. Its bad exegesis. It is something only DP teaches. The practice of selectively using individual verses and ignoring everything else is a reason NOT to lean Dispensationally premillennial!
No, we do not. Dispensationalists believe the things listed in the opening post are in the future. They do not know it. Dispensationalists believe these things in direct contradiction to what everyone else in Christendom has believed since Jesus first taught these things. No one but Dispensational Premillennialists separate the rapture from the Second Coming. No one. Dispies do not know it; they believe it.
And when they are asked about it, they hide behind selectively used verses and attack the inquirer with accusations s/he is crossing Jesus.
Well, that is just another example of Dispensational inanity but I will address that in a separate post so as not to confuse or distract from the fact all I am asking is one, single, solitary question:
When will the events described in this op occur? Please be as specific as you feel comfortable being.
No, it doesn't.I appreciate the directness of your concerns, but your claim--namely that “Matthew 24:34 is misused in reference to the Antichrist because the Antichrist is not mentioned in the chapter”-overlooks the nature of apocalyptic discourse, the intertextual connections among New Testament eschatological texts, and the larger framework of the Olivet Discourse.
Whether making sense or not (you're not) the two specific points being discussed are 1) this op has no clues when the events cited will happen, and 2) Matthew 24:36 is being misused.First, while it is accurate that the specific term ἀντίχριστος (antichristos) does not appear in Matthew 24, it also appears only in the Johannine epistles (1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 7). Nowhere in the Pauline corpus or Revelation is that specific term used-yet few would dispute that "the man of sin" (2 Thessalonians 2:3–4) or "the beast" (Revelation 13) belong to the same eschatological category. Thus, to argue that a concept cannot be referenced or alluded to unless the exact term appears in the chapter is linguistically and exegetically untenable.
Second, Jesus in Matthew 24 explicitly warns of false christs (pseudochristoi) and false prophets (pseudoprophētai) who will “deceive many” and perform signs and wonders (Matthew 24:5, 11, 24). The Greek for “false christs” is ψευδόχριστοι, which directly parallels the concept of “antichrist” in 1 John 2:18–22, where many antichrists are said to have gone out into the world. The semantic field overlaps. In fact, the Johannine understanding of “antichrist” is not that of a singular figure only, but a pattern of opposition to Christ, which Jesus himself preemptively warned against.
Third, regarding Matthew 24:34-“Truly, I say to you, this generation (ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη) will not pass away until all these things take place”--the matter hinges not on preterism per se, but on how “this generation” is understood in the context of Jewish apocalyptic language.
As shown in Qumran texts (e.g., 1QpHab), 1 Enoch, and Deuteronomy 32:5, the term “generation” often carries both a moral and eschatological connotation, not merely a chronological one.
Moreover, Jesus uses “this generation” repeatedly in Matthew to refer to his contemporaries (cf. Matthew 11:16; 12:39; 23:36).
Your assertion that those appealing to Matthew 24 are “blatantly abusing scripture” is serious and should be made with caution. The actual exegetical problem lies not in the reference to Matthew 24, but in divorcing New Testament eschatological motifs from their thematic unity and intertextual coherence.
While Matthew 24 does not use the word "antichrist," it does address the function and role of antichrist-like deception.
The logic of intertextuality affirms the legitimacy of bringing Matthew 24:34 into eschatological discussions involving deceptive end-time figures.
The interpretive issue lies in how one construes “generation” and the referents of “these things” (ταῦτα πάντα), not in whether Matthew 24 can be responsibly cited in relation to broader eschatological timelines.
Am I making sense here?
J.
Relevance?So are you a preterist or partial?
The op is not about when things will happen, but a discussion on whether they are future or not. So, do you believe the things in the op will be future, or have they already happened. Give solid reasons backing up your belief. Again, you cross Jesus by stating that we can know when Jesus was clear that not even He knows. However, we can know whether it is future or if it already happened. It's called history. If it isn't recorded as having happened in history, then common sense would say that it is future.No, it doesn't.
Whether making sense or not (you're not) the two specific points being discussed are 1) this op has no clues when the events cited will happen, and 2) Matthew 24:36 is being misused.
There is a third concern: Modern futurists do not know how to stay on topic and one of their most commonly occurring means of avoiding discussion of their views is to constantly change the topic (another is ad hominem). Posts 43, 46, and 47 demonstrate this. While I expect @Grace ambassador to be able to speak for him/herself, go back to Post #2 and answer the question asked. Nothing more is asked of anyone here. It would be nice if just one a modern futurist would answer the question, "When will what you've said happen?" immediately and directly, and then discuss their answer to that question (with some cogency and coherency).
The op lists several events that will, supposedly, happen in the future. The op does not, however, specify when those events will occur. If those events are not going to happen for another century, or another millennium, then why are any of us concerned with this op at all? Why be concerned about any of those vents if they are not going to occur within our lifetime? These questions are not particularly difficulty questions, nor are they unrelated to the practice of posting ops about future end times events. All of us can turn on our radios, tune to the Christian station and hear preachers listing these same events and we can do it every day of the week.
About 200 years of this has been happening and not a single preacher has ever made a correct prediction. Modern futurism has a 100% fail rate. Maybe @Grace ambassador is the one who will be correct, but how will anyone know if the "when" question goes unanswered (and scripture gets misused to avoid answering that question)?
When will the events listed in this op happen? Please be as specific as you feel comfortable being.
You mean how you keep trying to hijack the thread from what the op is about? The op didn't talk about a when, other then saying the things are future. You keep attacking Jesus by claiming that we can know, and demand that we cross Jesus by putting a date on something Jesus said that He Himself doesn't know. Why would I allow you to make me sin? Should I put that on you before God? The discussion should be on whether those things are, or can be future. It could be quite the fruitful discussion.No, it doesn't.
Whether making sense or not (you're not) the two specific points being discussed are 1) this op has no clues when the events cited will happen, and 2) Matthew 24:36 is being misused.
There is a third concern: Modern futurists do not know how to stay on topic and one of their most commonly occurring means of avoiding discussion of their views is to constantly change the topic (another is ad hominem). Posts 43, 46, and 47 demonstrate this.
That is hijacking the thread. We should be discussing post 1 which is the op.While I expect @Grace ambassador to be able to speak for him/herself, go back to Post #2 and answer the question asked. Nothing more is asked of anyone here. It would be nice if just one a modern futurist would answer the question, "When will what you've said happen?" immediately and directly, and then discuss their answer to that question (with some cogency and coherency).
Hence the reason why you should not be demanding dates. Especially when we have Jesus, the one we claim to follow, stating that not only can we not know, He Himself doesn't know.The op lists several events that will, supposedly, happen in the future. The op does not, however, specify when those events will occur.
I don't know. Why are you concerned? I'm not. I believe it is future. So that means I must endure, not knowing when. Hence the reason why the Bible emphasizes endurance/perseverance when it comes to eschatology. Our patience with God Himself will be strained. Hence Peter facing it head on and stating that God is not slow as we consider slowness. He is not slack in fulfilling His promises. He has purpose. People tend to forget. Again, why the Bible speaks to endurace/perseverance.If those events are not going to happen for another century, or another millennium, then why are any of us concerned with this op at all?
Why would you say we are concerned? I'm not concerned. I'm watching, and waiting for the glorious end that is to come. There are those who seek to make a name for themselves, or make a ton of money by being the ones who say, He is here. No He is here. He is coming on this date. Don't believe them. Why? They shipwreck many. How many people lose faith when those who claim to speak for God, turn out to be liars? Not all consider them liars, but instead decide God is not there, God is not real, etc.Why be concerned about any of those vents if they are not going to occur within our lifetime? These questions are not particularly difficulty questions, nor are they unrelated to the practice of posting ops about future end times events. All of us can turn on our radios, tune to the Christian station and hear preachers listing these same events and we can do it every day of the week.
Again, Jesus was clear. Why do you question Him on what He has said? He is clear. No one, not even Jesus Himself, knows the time. Why do you stand in His face? It doesn't bother me that I don't know when. I can only imagine the shipwreck that would become of Christianity if we knew when. How many would become that foolish servant, except now they know when to clean up the house so the master can't tell they played the fool up until before the master returned, so they could clean up the evidence? It would be a great stain on the name of God.About 200 years of this has been happening and not a single preacher has ever made a correct prediction. Modern futurism has a 100% fail rate. Maybe @Grace ambassador is the one who will be correct, but how will anyone know if the "when" question goes unanswered (and scripture gets misused to avoid answering that question)?
They will be in the future. That is as specific as a child of God can and should be.When will the events listed in this op happen? Please be as specific as you feel comfortable being.
Yep. I addressed that point, and I did so multiple times.The op is not about when things will happen, but a discussion on whether they are future or not.
There will be no shifting of the onus (at least not until I get an answer to the question(s) I asked. I will not participate in the decit of asking me questions and never getting answers. I will not participate in the disingenuousness of posting content and then refusing to answer question directly related to that content. I will not participate in a one-sided non-conversation and call it a discussion or dialogue. I will not participate in any attempt to shift the non-conversation away from the op to anyone else's views. The op and its defenders can either evidence (and maybe prove) the o, or they cannot. Rank speculation is not cogent discourse, and it most definitely sound doctrine. The matter of rank speculation is particularly important when it comes to modern futurism because there hasn't been a single accurate end times prediction in modern futurism in the 200 years since it was invented.So, do you believe the things in the op will be future, or have they already happened.
Yes, and as soon as I get and answer to when these things will happen from the one asserting the op (or one of its defenders) I will gladly discuss that answer.The op is not about when things will happen, but a discussion on whether they are future or not.
It is difficult to stay in those trenches when one virtually accused you of having no business there.to the trenches for the hour is late .
people accuse me all the time . what is that to me . I KNOW whom i serveIt is difficult to stay in those trenches when one virtually accused you of having no business there.
Carry on. Ill try to catch up
I have seen first hand true sheepIt is difficult to stay in those trenches when one virtually accused you of having no business there.
Carry on. Ill try to catch up
Touch a mans golden bull and you would marvel at what they are capable of doing against such a one that does just that .It is difficult to stay in those trenches when one virtually accused you of having no business there.
Carry on. Ill try to catch up
If a tree is good it has a good strong root that came forth of the true seed .It is difficult to stay in those trenches when one virtually accused you of having no business there.
Carry on. Ill try to catch up