Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
theophilus

Matthew 24:33-34

Recommended Posts

The meaning of Matthew 24:34 is clearer if you also consider the verse that precedes it.

 

33 So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. 34 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

 

Verse 33 shows Jesus is speaking of those who see the fulfillment of what he has already prophesied, not those to whom he is now speaking.

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, theophilus said:

The meaning of Matthew 24:34 is clearer if you also consider the verse that precedes it.

 

33 So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. 34 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

 

Verse 33 shows Jesus is speaking of those who see the fulfillment of what he has already prophesied, not those to whom he is now speaking.

I agree 100% great observation, the future generation that will witness the event of the second coming.

 

We have moved back to the topic of "Revelation Dating" after much wandering, thanks for the reply.

Edited by Truth7t7

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

What is the grammatical evidence for your claims?

 

So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

(Matthew 24:32-34 ESV)

 

(1) "this generation" does not mean "this generation"

 

The nature reading of this text points to the generation Jesus was addressing at that time. This can be illustrated easily, Jesus did not say "that generation" (i.e. ἡ γενεὰ ἐκείνη) pointing to a future or different generation. That is the whole point of using demonstratives. It is "this generation" not "that generation" (i.e. some other generation).  There is no grammatical reason to take the phrase "this generation" as referring to any other generation other than the one he was addressing at that time.   There is a grammatical reason not think it is a future or different generation and the reason is the demonstrative pronoun "that" is not in the text.  If Jesus wanted to make sure that it was a future or another generation, it would have been no problem for him and all he had to do was use "that" rather than "this."  It is that simple.

 

(2) "you see" does not mean "you"

 

This example is worse than the last.   Jesus is taking to the disciples.  There is no change of person in the text.  None!  It is always 2nd person plural from verse 4 to 28.

 

leads you astray (v. 4)

you will hear (v. 6)

you are not alarmed (v. 6)

will deliver you (v. 9)

put you to death (v. 9)

you will be hated (v. 9)

when you see the abomination of desolation (v. 15)

if anyone says to you (v. 23) 

do not believe it (v. 23)  The verb is 2nd person plural.

I have told you beforehand (v. 25)

if they say to you (v. 26)

do not believe it (v. 26) The verb is 2nd person plural.

 

In every case the verb and\or pronoun is 2nd person plural.

 

Yet given the fact he is addressing the disciples, uses the 2nd person plural correctly, never changes person, is he been suggested Jesus was not referring to disciples but "speaking of those who see the fulfillment of what he has already prophesied, not those to whom he is now speaking."

 

Just think of it.  Every time Jesus said "you" he did not mean "you" (i.e. the disciples) but "them."  Makes me wonder why Jesus would not just use the 3rd person plural rather than the 2nd person plural.  It makes zero sense to use the 2nd person plural.

 

The first half of verse 33 reads: οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς, ὅταν ἴδητε πάντα ταῦτα. The Geek text literally states: "So also you, when you see these thing." The point to note is the pronoun ὑμεῖς (i.e. you). Greek verbs do not need subject pronouns to complete the verb. The verb according to form is 1st, 2nd, 3rd person, singular or plural. The verb ἴδητε means "you see." So when a pronoun is added it emphasizes the subject of the verb. Placement of the pronoun is also important. In this case it come before the verb which makes it emphatic. This is important because Jesus is addressing the disciples (v. 3). Jesus is emphasizing the subject of the verb namely the disciples (i.e. "So when YOU see these thing). Thus it is the disciples who see these things.

 

In order to accept the claims found in the above two posts one has to accept when Jesus said "this generation" He was referring to some other generation not the one he was talking to face to face, and when Jesus uses the 2nd person plural he does not mean "you" (i.e. his audience) but "them," (i.e. someone else other than ones he was addressing).  The natural use of language does not works that way, and such methods turn language on it head.


I ask again what is the grammatical evidence?  What are the grammatical clues that tell you Jesus is not saying what he is clearly saying?

  • Best Answer 1

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
2 hours ago, davidtaylorjr said:

Of course @Origen it is reasonable to conclude that it could be read "This race" or "This people" given the various senses and meanings of the word γενεὰ. 

There are three problems with that.

 

First, even if those are possibilities it does nothing to prove they ought to be accepted over "generation."  Mere possibility does nothing to show they are better or more accurate.  Those choices are made based upon grammar, normal word usages, and exegesis.

 

Second, in order to accept one of those possibilities we would have to believe that the translators of the KJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, CSB, NLT,  RSV and dozens more all got it wrong.  I mean when you have that much agree meant among translators, it is excellent evidence they are correct.  I could not find one translation that had anything other than "generation."

 

Third, Matthew uses the term "this generation" 5 times, Mark 3 times, and Luke 9 times.  In every case "generation" it is the preferred translation and fits the context better.  I mean when Jesus said "This generation is an evil generation" he clearly did not mean race.  Following normal word usage "generation" fits better and does not needlessly change the meaning of the word for the sake of mere possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, Origen said:

There are three problems with that.

 

First, even if those are possibilities it does nothing to prove they ought to be accepted over "generation."  Mere possibility does nothing to show they are better or more accurate.  Those choices are made based upon grammar, normal word usages, and exegesis.

 

Second, in order to accept one of those possibilities we would have to believe that the translators of the KJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, CSB, NLT,  RSV and dozens more all got it wrong.  I mean when you have that much agree meant among translators, it is excellent evidence they are correct.  I could not find one translation that had anything other than "generation."

 

Third, Matthew uses the term "this generation" 5 times, Mark 3 times, and Luke 9 times.  In every case "generation" is the preferred translation and fits the context better.  I mean when Jesus said "This generation is an evil generation" he clearly did not mean race.  Following normal word usage "generation" fits better and does not needlessly change the meaning of the word for the sake of mere possibility.

I would argue that he did mean race when speaking of an evil generation. And I did not say generation was the wrong translation. I said that there are different senses to that word in the Greek text.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
30 minutes ago, davidtaylorjr said:

I would argue that he did mean race when speaking of an evil generation.

Again you would have to go against the majority of translators\translations.

 

30 minutes ago, davidtaylorjr said:

And I did not say generation was the wrong translation.

If I implied you did I am sorry.

 

30 minutes ago, davidtaylorjr said:

I said that there are different senses to that word in the Greek text.

First, as I pointed out Matthew uses the term "this generation" 5 times, Mark 3 times, and Luke 9 times.  The word "generation" is by far the preferred translation and fits the context better.  It is a mountain of evidence to over come.

 

Second, even if those are possibilities it does nothing to prove they ought to be accepted over "generation."  Mere possibility does nothing to show they are better or more accurate.  Those choices are made based upon grammar, normal word usages, and exegesis.

 

Also, that type of argument is often used by Catholics when it comes to debating if many had other children.  They are quick to point out the word "brother" has many difference meanings\nuances.  Nevertheless simply because a word has a possible semantic range does not show all or even most would fit.  Possibility is not evidence.

 

Third, even if we change it to "this race" or "this people" is really does not help.  The question is who Jesus talking to or about?  The nature reading of this text points to the generation\race\people Jesus was addressing at that time. This can be illustrated easily.  Jesus did not say "that generation" (i.e. ἡ γενεὰ ἐκείνη) pointing to a future or different generation\race\people. That is the whole point of using demonstratives. It is "this generation" not "that generation" (i.e. some other generation\race\people).  There is no grammatical reason to take the phrase "this generation" as referring to any other generation other than the one he was addressing at that time.   There is a grammatical reason not think it is a future or different generation and the reason is the demonstrative pronoun "that" is not in the text.  If Jesus wanted to make sure that it was a future or another generation, it would have been no problem for him and all he had to do was use "that" rather than "this."  It is that simple.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Origen said:

Again you would have to go against the majority of translators\translations.

 

If I implied you did I am sorry.

 

First, as I pointed out Matthew uses the term "this generation" 5 times, Mark 3 times, and Luke 9 times.  The word "generation" is by far the preferred translation and fits the context better.  It is a mountain of evidence to over come.

 

Second, even if those are possibilities it does nothing to prove they ought to be accepted over "generation."  Mere possibility does nothing to show they are better or more accurate.  Those choices are made based upon grammar, normal word usages, and exegesis.

 

That type of argument is often used by Catholics when it comes to debating if many had other children.  They are quick to point out the word "brother" has many difference meanings\nuances.  Nevertheless simply because a word has a possible semantic range does not show all or even most would fit.  Possibility is not evidence.

 

Third, even if we change it to "this race" or "this people" is really does not help.  The question is who Jesus talking to or about?  The nature reading of this text points to the generation Jesus was addressing at that time. This can be illustrated easily, Jesus did not say "that generation" (i.e. ἡ γενεὰ ἐκείνη) pointing to a future or different generation. That is the whole point of using demonstratives. It is "this generation" not "that generation" (i.e. some other generation).  There is no grammatical reason to take the phrase "this generation" as referring to any other generation other than the one he was addressing at that time.   There is a grammatical reason not think it is a future or different generation and the reason is the demonstrative pronoun "that" is not in the text.  If Jesus wanted to make sure that it was a future or another generation, it would have been no problem for him and all he had to do was use "that" rather than "this."  It is that simple.

Then you have a hurdle to overcome that the events described did not take place before the generation (contemporary group) passed away. I know you will point to 70AD. But there are many holes with that as I have shown with regard to a cataclysmic event described in the chapter with the heavens. The events simply did not happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
Just now, davidtaylorjr said:

Then you have a hurdle to overcome that the events described did not take place before the generation (contemporary group) passed away. I know you will point to 70AD. But there are many holes with that as I have shown with regard to a cataclysmic event described in the chapter with the heavens. The events simply did not happen.

Maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Origen said:

First, as I pointed out Matthew uses the term "this generation" 5 times, Mark 3 times, and Luke 9 times.  The word "generation" is by far the preferred translation and fits the context better.  It is a mountain of evidence to over come.

 

Second, even if those are possibilities it does nothing to prove they ought to be accepted over "generation."  Mere possibility does nothing to show they are better or more accurate.  Those choices are made based upon grammar, normal word usages, and exegesis.

I think it should be noted that the NASB thought that race was a plausible enough translation choice that they gave it as an alternate reading in the footnote.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
10 minutes ago, davidtaylorjr said:

I think it should be noted that the NASB thought that race was a plausible enough translation choice that they gave it as an alternate reading in the footnote.

I agree it does.  Nevertheless they chose "generation" for the body of the text in every example I cited (i.e. Matthew uses the term "this generation" 5 times, Mark 3 times, and Luke 9 times).

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
19 minutes ago, davidtaylorjr said:

I think it should be noted that the NASB thought that race was a plausible enough translation choice that they gave it as an alternate reading in the footnote.

How's that not grabbing at straws? Going against the preferred and stated translations for a footnote? 

 

All I am saying is that I'd be questioning my theology at this point. That is, if I'd have to reject the majority of preferred and stated translations for a footnote.

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, William said:

How's that not grabbing at straws? Going against the preferred and stated translations for a footnote? 

 

All I am saying is that I'd be questioning my theology at this point. That is, if I'd have to reject the majority of preferred and stated translations for a footnote.

 

No, it is the sense of the word. Again, generation is the right translation but can mean different things. And almost every major commentary gives both readings fair credit.

 

If one is honest they know we cannot be dogmatic on this issue. I could be dead wrong. I don't believe I am but I know that I could be. But so could you. There are perceived holes in my position but there are in yours as well. 

 

So no, I do not question my theology at this point. I believe it is synthesized with Scripture based on proper interpretational methods. I can also see how you arrive at your interpretation but disagree as you disagree with me.

 

The biggest hangup for me on your interpretation is that the text says these things will come to pass before the generation passes away, yet those things did not happen. So either the Bible got it wrong, or the interpretation of the word generation and what it means in that context is not correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
9 minutes ago, davidtaylorjr said:

No, it is the sense of the word. Again, generation is the right translation but can mean different things. And almost every major commentary gives both readings fair credit.

 

If one is honest they know we cannot be dogmatic on this issue. I could be dead wrong. I don't believe I am but I know that I could be. But so could you. There are perceived holes in my position but there are in yours as well. 

 

So no, I do not question my theology at this point. I believe it is synthesized with Scripture based on proper interpretational methods. I can also see how you arrive at your interpretation but disagree as you disagree with me.

 

The biggest hangup for me on your interpretation is that the text says these things will come to pass before the generation passes away, yet those things did not happen. So either the Bible got it wrong, or the interpretation of the word generation and what it means in that context is not correct.

 I really really believe the debates are a waste of time until the proper hermeneutic is agreed upon for any given book in the bible. 

 

I think this thread, however is a blessing to those that are not looking only for single sided arguments but rather want to understand the for or against arguments of a theological camp. Although, you are both addressing exegesis which precedes theology. Correct exegesis can make or break a theological perspective, or a theology can force an alternative exegesis from a footnote :classic_biggrin:.

 

Both of you should be sleeping by now. Go to bed!

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, William said:

Correct exegesis can make or break a theological perspective, or a theology can force an alternative exegesis from a footnote :classic_biggrin:.

Of course, I don't get it from that one footnote lol 😉

 

That being said, I don't agree with everything the Reformers believed. Example, I don't believe in paedobaptism as it is not in Scripture, but that is another topic for another day.  But I do believe you and I both arrive at our different conclusions with solid exegetical principles. And, at the end of the day, only one of us can be right or we could both actually be wrong, but we cannot both be right. 

 

And yes, with that I am going to bed. 🙂 

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Origen said:

What is the grammatical evidence for your claims?

 

So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

(Matthew 24:32-34 ESV)

 

(1) "this generation" does not mean "this generation"

 

The nature reading of this text points to the generation Jesus was addressing at that time. This can be illustrated easily, Jesus did not say "that generation" (i.e. ἡ γενεὰ ἐκείνη) pointing to a future or different generation. That is the whole point of using demonstratives. It is "this generation" not "that generation" (i.e. some other generation).  There is no grammatical reason to take the phrase "this generation" as referring to any other generation other than the one he was addressing at that time.   There is a grammatical reason not think it is a future or different generation and the reason is the demonstrative pronoun "that" is not in the text.  If Jesus wanted to make sure that it was a future or another generation, it would have been no problem for him and all he had to do was use "that" rather than "this."  It is that simple.

 

(2) "you see" does not mean "you"

 

This example is worse than the last.   Jesus is taking to the disciples.  There is no change of person in the text.  None!  It is always 2nd person plural from verse 4 to 28.

 

leads you astray (v. 4)

you will hear (v. 6)

you are not alarmed (v. 6)

will deliver you (v. 9)

put you to death (v. 9)

you will be hated (v. 9)

when you see the abomination of desolation (v. 15)

if anyone says to you (v. 23) 

do not believe it (v. 23)  The verb is 2nd person plural.

I have told you beforehand (v. 25)

if they say to you (v. 26)

do not believe it (v. 26) The verb is 2nd person plural.

 

In every case the verb and\or pronoun is 2nd person plural.

 

Yet given the fact he is addressing the disciples, uses the 2nd person plural correctly, never changes person, is he been suggested Jesus was not referring to disciples but "speaking of those who see the fulfillment of what he has already prophesied, not those to whom he is now speaking."

 

Just think of it.  Every time Jesus said "you" he did not mean "you" (i.e. the disciples) but "them."  Makes me wonder why Jesus would not just use the 3rd person plural rather than the 2nd person plural.  It makes zero sense to use the 2nd person plural.

 

The first half of verse 33 reads: οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς, ὅταν ἴδητε πάντα ταῦτα. The Geek text literally states: "So also you, when you see these thing." The point to note is the pronoun ὑμεῖς (i.e. you). Greek verbs do not need subject pronouns to complete the verb. The verb according to form is 1st, 2nd, 3rd person, singular or plural. The verb ἴδητε means "you see." So when a pronoun is added it emphasizes the subject of the verb. Placement of the pronoun is also important. In this case it come before the verb which makes it emphatic. This is important because Jesus is addressing the disciples (v. 3). Jesus is emphasizing the subject of the verb namely the disciples (i.e. "So when YOU see these thing). Thus it is the disciples who see these things.

 

In order to accept the claims found in the above two posts one has to accept when Jesus said "this generation" He was referring to some other generation not the one he was talking to face to face, and when Jesus uses the 2nd person plural he does not mean "you" (i.e. his audience) but "them," (i.e. someone else other than ones he was addressing).  The natural use of language does not works that way, and such methods turn language on it head.


I ask again what is the grammatical evidence?  What are the grammatical clues that tell you Jesus is not saying what he is clearly saying?

"This Generation" is the future generation that will be eye witnesses of the second coming/advent.

 

There is no secret formula, the scripture is very simple and easy to understand.

 

The complete Chapter of Matthew 24 is dedicated to answering the question in verse 3, the second coming/advent and end of this world.

 

What is near even at the doors, the second advent and end of the world seen in verses 29-31, simple.

 

The generation that will be present to witness the events described in chapter 24, including the second coming/advent.

 

The day and hour no man knoweth is the second coming/advent.

 

Absolutely impossible to have a 66-70AD fulfillment of the Abomination of desolation and Great Tribulation, and a second coming/advent "immediately after the tribulation of those day's" taking place 2,000 years out and waiting?

 

1.) "What shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world"? 

 

2.) "Know that it is near, even at the doors"?

 

3.) "This Generation shall not pass"

 

4.) "Of that day and hour knoweth no man"?

 

Matthew 24:3 & 33-36KJV

3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

 

33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.

34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

Edited by Truth7t7

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, davidtaylorjr said:

Then you have a hurdle to overcome that the events described did not take place before the generation (contemporary group) passed away. I know you will point to 70AD. But there are many holes with that as I have shown with regard to a cataclysmic event described in the chapter with the heavens. The events simply did not happen.

Many preterist argue Revelation 1:1-3 in the words "Soon" and "At Hand" trying to justify a 66-70AD fulfillment of many aspects of Revelation.

 

Matthew 24:29-31 below directly disproves 66-70AD fulfillment, as we see the "Second Advent" taking place "Immediately" After the "Great Tribulation" as seen in Matthew 24:21

 

The preterist is forced to symbolize or remove the second advent clearly seen in verses 29-30 below to maintain their teaching of 66-70AD fulfillment.

 

Many preterist then disregard Matthew 24:29 and the words "Immediately After The Tribulation Of Those Day's" as if the scripture didn't exist. 

 

"Impossible" to have a literal Abomination of Desolation and Great Tribulation in 66-70AD, and interpret "Immediately after the tribulation of those day's" as being 2,000 years out and waiting.

 

History refutes the 66-70AD fulfillment of the "Great Tribulation" as seen in verse 21 below "No, Nor Ever Shall Be", as World War II dwarfs the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, with estimates of 50-80 million casualties.

 

Daniel 12:1-2 below is in perfect agreement with the resurrection and final judgment taking place at the time of Great Tribulation, as the resurrection is also seen in Matthew 24:31 below.

 

There will be a future Abomination of Desolation and Great Tribulation, and the Second Coming will take place immediately after this future Great Tribulation, the scripture is very simple and easy to understand.

 

Matthew 24:21 & 29-31KJV

21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

 

29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

 

Daniel 12:1-2KJV

12 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Edited by Truth7t7

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
4 hours ago, Truth7t7 said:

"This Generation" is the future generation that will be eye witnesses of the second coming/advent

Does not address the grammatical evidence given.  What is the grammatical evidence for your claims?

 

4 hours ago, Truth7t7 said:

There is no secret formula, the scripture is very simple and easy to understand.

Then give the grammatical evidence for your claims concerning for the verse.

 

4 hours ago, Truth7t7 said:

The complete Chapter of Matthew 24 is dedicated to answering the question in verse 3, the second coming/advent and end of this world.

Not "question" but "questions."   It was the destruction of the temple that prompted the questions.  When you leave out context as you have there will always be problems.

 

4 hours ago, Truth7t7 said:

What is near even at the doors, the second advent and end of the world seen in verses 29-31, simple.

Again that was only part of the discussion.  When you leave out context as you have there will always be problems.  Your view is myopic.

 

4 hours ago, Truth7t7 said:

The generation that will be present to witness the events described in chapter 24, including the second coming/advent.

Simply stating what you believe is not evidence.  What is the grammatical evidence for your claims concerning the verse?

 

4 hours ago, Truth7t7 said:

The day and hour no man knoweth is the second coming/advent.

That was never in question.  Moreover, again you over look certain context points which don't fit your view.

 

4 hours ago, Truth7t7 said:

Absolutely impossible to have a 66-70AD fulfillment of the Abomination of desolation and Great Tribulation, and a second coming/advent "immediately after the tribulation of those day's" taking place 2,000 years out and waiting?

 

1.) "What shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world"? 

 

2.) "Know that it is near, even at the doors"?

 

3.) "This Generation shall not pass"

 

4.) "Of that day and hour knoweth no man"?

Nothing in your post refutes the grammatical evidence given or does it even attempt to address it.  You simply ignore it.  It is clear that you have none.  Also your lack of addition to detail within the overall context does not help matters.

 

So unless you can give grammatical evidence why Jesus would use "this generation" when He was referring to some other generation not the one he was talking to face to face (i.e. that generation), and why Jesus would uses the 2nd person plural when he did not mean "you" (i.e. his audience) but "them" (i.e. someone else other than ones he was addressing), then this discussion is a waste of time.  Jesus' grammar was the common natural uses of the language.  All you have to do is prove it wasn't.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Origen said:

Does not address the grammatical evidence.  What is the grammatical evidence for your claims?

 

Then give the grammatical evidence for your claims.

 

Not "question" "but "questions."   It was the destruction of the temple that prompted the questions.  When you leave out context as you have there will always be problems.

 

Again that was only part of the discussion.  When you leave out context as you have there will always be problems.  Your view is myopic.

 

Simply stating what you believe is not evidence.  What is the grammatical evidence for your claims?

 

That was never in question.  Moreover, again you over look certain context points which don't fit your view.

 

None of your post refute the grammatical evidence given or does it even attempt to address it.  It is clear that you have none.  Also your lack of addition to detail within the overall context does not help matters.

 

So unless you can give grammatical evidence why Jesus would use "this generation" when He was referring to some other generation not the one he was talking to face to face (i.e. that generation), and why Jesus would uses the 2nd person plural when he did not mean "you" (i.e. his audience) but "them" (i.e. someone else other than ones he was addressing), then this discussion is a waste of time.  Jesus' grammar was the common natural uses of the language.  All you have to do is prove is wasn't.

Jesus Christ was speaking to the Apostles about events that would precede his second advent, the bible states

 

"This Generation" not "Your Generation"

 

Jesus Christ was speaking to the future generation that will witness the events.

 

God's word's are simple, as you disregard Matthew 24:29-30 that destroys 66-70AD fulfillment of The abomination of desolation and Great tribulation.

 

It's your lack of detail to the "Basic" context and the very plain teaching of scripture Seen below.

 

You Can't have a great tribulation in 66-70AD, and a second advent 2,000 years away representing "Immediately after the tribulation of "THOSE DAY'S"

 

This is a no brainer, as you alude away from this truth.

 

Matthew 24:15 Abomination Of Desolation

 

Matthew 24:21 Great Tribulation

 

Matthew 24:29 "Immediately after the tribulation of those days"

 

Matthew 24:30 "They Shall See The Son Of Man" 

 

Many preterist don't want to see the literal second coming below, "Because It Destroys Preterist 66-70AD Fulfillment"

 

We know we'll Jesus Christ didn't return in 66-70AD after the preterist claim of a 66-70AD great tribulation, nor did the world see him come in the clouds of heaven, 66-70AD fulfillment is now gone.

 

Matthew 24:21 & 29-31KJV

21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

 

29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Edited by Truth7t7

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
4 hours ago, Truth7t7 said:

Jesus Christ was speaking to the Apostles about events that would precede his second advent, the bible states

That was part of it but not the whole.  It was the destruction of the temple that prompted the questions.  When you leave out context as you have there will always be problems.

 

4 hours ago, Truth7t7 said:

"This Generation" not "Your Generation"

That simply ignores the common natural use of the language, the meaning and function of demonstratives, and the 2nd person plural verbs and pronouns.

 

4 hours ago, Truth7t7 said:

God's word's are simple, as you disregard Matthew 24:29-30 that destroys 66-70AD fulfillment of The abomination of desolation and Great tribulation.

 

It's your lack of detail to the "Basic" context and the very plain teaching of scripture.

 

You Can't have a great tribulation in 66-70AD, and a second advent 2,000 years away representing "Immediately after the tribulation of "THOSE DAY'S"

 

This is a no brainer, as you alude away from this truth.

Clearly you are unable to address the grammar of the passage and must try and change the topic.

 

4 hours ago, Truth7t7 said:

Many preterist don't want to see the literal second coming below, "Because It Destroys Preterist 66-70AD Fulfillment"

I don't care what many preterist see or don't see, do or don't do, believe or don't believe.  It is irrelevant to the grammatical evidence of Matthew 24:33-34.  Thus your point is irrelevant.

 

4 hours ago, Truth7t7 said:

We know we'll Jesus Christ didn't return in 66-70AD, nor did the world see him come in the clouds of heaven, 66-70AD fulfillment is now gone.

Never said he did, never believe he did.  Again your point is irrelevant.

 

4 hours ago, Truth7t7 said:

29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

I do find it amusing how you highlight only what you want to see and miss other key elements\terms and structure.  I have address this passage else where and feel no need to address it again.   Moreover I have no reason to think you could answer that grammatical evidence any better than you have theses.

 

Again, unless you can give grammatical evidence why Jesus would use "this generation" when He was referring to some other generation not the one he was talking to face to face (i.e. that generation), and why Jesus would uses the 2nd person plural when he did not mean "you" (i.e. his audience) but "them" (i.e. someone else other than ones he was addressing), then this discussion is a waste of time. Jesus' grammar was the common natural uses of the language.  All you have to do is prove it wasn't.

 

Stay on the topic.  Stop arguing against things I never said nor believe.  I do not care what all, most, many, or some preterists think.  It is completely irrelevant to me and the topic.  This is a very bad habit of yours. Stop tilting at windmills.  The arguments are not theological but grammatical.  Deal with those or drop the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
3 hours ago, Origen said:

Stay on the topic.  Stop arguing against things I never said nor believe.  I do not care what all, most, many, or some preterists think.  It is completely irrelevant to me and the topic.  This is a very bad habit of yours. Stop tilting at windmills.  The arguments are not theological but grammatical.  Deal with those or drop the matter.

Please read the above as a request from staff. 

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Origen said:

That was part of it but not the whole.  It was the destruction of the temple that prompted the questions.  When you leave out context as you have there will always be problems.

 

That simply ignores the common natural use of the language, the meaning and function of demonstratives, and the 2nd person plural verbs and pronouns.

 

Clearly you are unable to address the grammar of the passage and must try and change the topic.

 

I don't care what many preterist see or don't see, do or don't do, believe or don't believe.  It is irrelevant to the grammatical evidence of Matthew 24:33-34.  Thus your point is irrelevant.

 

Never said he did, never believe he did.  Again your point is irrelevant.

 

I do find it amusing how you highlight only what you want to see and miss other key elements\terms and structure.  I have address this passage else where and feel no need to address it again.   Moreover I have no reason to think you could answer that grammatical evidence any better than you have theses.

 

Again, unless you can give grammatical evidence why Jesus would use "this generation" when He was referring to some other generation not the one he was talking to face to face (i.e. that generation), and why Jesus would uses the 2nd person plural when he did not mean "you" (i.e. his audience) but "them" (i.e. someone else other than ones he was addressing), then this discussion is a waste of time. Jesus' grammar was the common natural uses of the language.  All you have to do is prove it wasn't.

 

Stay on the topic.  Stop arguing against things I never said nor believe.  I do not care what all, most, many, or some preterists think.  It is completely irrelevant to me and the topic.  This is a very bad habit of yours. Stop tilting at windmills.  The arguments are not theological but grammatical.  Deal with those or drop the matter.

"The argument has evolved" into whether the events of Matthew chapter 24 took place in 66-70AD, I believe there are several in this conversation that are "Partial Preterist" trying to defend 66-70AD fulfillment of the Abomination of Desolation and Great Tribulation.

 

"This Generation" is a pillar and foundation of the "Preterist Argument"

 

Will the opposition to the teaching of "Partial Preterism" now be silenced?

Edited by Truth7t7

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
2 hours ago, Truth7t7 said:

"The argument has evolved" into whether the events of Matthew chapter 24 took place in 66-70AD, I believe there are several in this conversation that are "Partial Preterist" trying to defend 66-70AD fulfillment of the Abomination od Desolation and Great Tribulation.

You are wrong on all points.  The fact is you want to set up straw men so you can knock them down.  If you want to create a topic concerning preterism please feel free to do so.  Your posts address position I do not hold nor do I endorse.  Perhaps someone here would like to defend views they don't hold\believe but I doubt it.

 

2 hours ago, Truth7t7 said:

You focus on two words, and disregard the context of scripture trying desperately to establish 66-70AD fulfillment.

Hardly.  Beside you cannot even address the grammatical evidence.

 

2 hours ago, Truth7t7 said:

Jesus Christ didn't return "Immediately After a great tribulation" in 66-70AD we all know this to be true.

AGAIN I NEVER SAID HE DID NOR DO I BELIEVE HE DID.  Hence there is no reason do address your irrelevant point.

 

2 hours ago, Truth7t7 said:

We know we'll World War II in 50-80 million casualtirs silences the preterist claim of the great tribulation taking place in 66-70AD.

Don't care.  Never made that argument, hence, another irrelevant point.  You are just tilting at windmills.

 

2 hours ago, Truth7t7 said:

The argument isn't grammar of "This Generation"

Only someone who does not understand the grammatical evidence and argument could make such a claim.

 

2 hours ago, Truth7t7 said:

The argument Is "Partial Preterism" in 66-70AD fulfillment, and "This Generation" is part of the preterist argument, simple.

No, that is what you want it to be.  That way you can force others into your extremely narrow and very limited understanding of the subject which does not accurately reflect what they believe and is nothing more than caricature.  It is not going to happen.  Now move on!

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Topics

    • Is Matthew 12:40 using common idiomatic language?

      Whenever the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40 is brought up in a "discussion" with 6th day of the week crucifixion folks, they frequently assert that it is using common Jewish idiomatic language. I wonder if anyone knows of any writing that shows an example from the first century or before regarding a period of time that is said to consist of a specific number of days and/or a specific number of nights where the period of time absolutely couldn't have included at least a part of each

      in Bible Study

    • Last Place Fantasy Football Team Invokes Matthew 19:30 Loophole, Declared To Be First

      PORTLAND, OR—Derrick Martinez' fantasy football team is dead last in his church's annual league, having gone 0-13 so far this year. The rest of the men at church had counted him out as a playoff contender, pointing out that it's mathematically impossible for him to make a comeback. The post Last Place Fantasy Football Team Invokes Matthew 19:30 Loophole, Declared To Be First appeared first on The Babylon Bee. View the original full article

      in Christian Satire

    • Theology, Matthew 18:15-17, & Justice

      I have been repeatedly asked to "forgive" my mother, but that does not mean I should not, or cannot punish her.  I want to follow Matthew 18 to do so, and for that I need witnesses. Many have counseled leaving, but ostracizing is supposed to only happen after she is confront Ed by witnesses.  Also, I have found no local church willing to cooperate with me.  I just don't want to judged for choosing to punish her.  I also want my theology submitted to theologian s, for judgment.  I am also doing t

      in Christian Relationships

    • Matthew 19:19-20 For Everyone?

      I am a member of another forum and there has recently been a discussion on whether the Great Commission is for all Christians or only the apostles. What do you think?   Here is an article with my thoughts on the topic:   https://reformedtruths.wordpress.com/2018/05/08/go-ye-all-into-the-world/   At the end of Matthew’s Gospel we see the final instructions given by Christ to His Disciples: This command is pretty straightforward if read at face value with its p

      in Bible Study

    • Pastors Heckle Jeff Sessions During Boston Speech, Urge Him to Repent, Cite Matthew 25

      Two pastors interrupted Attorney General Jeff Sessions' speech Monday at a religious freedom conference in Boston with one urging him to repent and another accusing him and his supporters of hypocrisy. View the full article

      in Christian Current Events

×
×
  • Create New...