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.
Dave L

Who is the "looming Great Tribulation" audience Jesus warns?

Recommended Posts

In Matthew 24:15 Jesus says: ““So when you see the abomination of desolation—spoken about by Daniel the prophet—standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),” (Matthew 24:15) (NET)

 

Later he says “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe him.” (Matthew 24:23) (NET) audience

 

Does the tense of the word "you" limit the Great Tribulation to the life time of his present audience when spoken?

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
1 hour ago, Dave L said:

Does the tense of the word "you" limit the Great Tribulation to the life time of his present audience when spoken?

Pronouns don't have tense.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, Origen said:

Pronouns don't have tense.

 

 

Correction: Do the associated verbs reflect present tense? If so, wouldn't this limit the Great Tribulation to the life times of the audience? You = those present at the time spoken?

Edited by Dave L

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
28 minutes ago, Dave L said:

Did the associated verbs reflect present tense?

No, it is an aorist, past tense.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Origen said:

No, it is an aorist, past tense.

Thanks, this is what I'm looking for. How does this relate to the audience then present? Does it mean they will live to see the Abomination of Desolation? Does it apply to Antiochus in the original Abomination of Desolation in 167 BC? How do you understand the passage?

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
27 minutes ago, Dave L said:

Thanks, this is what I'm looking for. How does this relate to the audience then present? Does it mean they will live to see the Abomination of Desolation? Does it apply to Antiochus in the original Abomination of Desolation in 167 BC? How do you understand the passage?

My answer concerning the grammar is in the link I gave.   The abomination of Desolation and Antiochus are not grammatical issues.  Also verb tense cannot tell us who would live or not live until a certain event in and of itself.  It would take more than that.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Origen said:

My answer concerning the grammar is in the link I gave.   The abomination of Desolation and Antiochus are not grammatical issues.  Also verb tense cannot tell us who would live or not live until a certain event in and of itself.  It would take more than that.

Thanks for taking time for this. I can now rule this out.    

Share this post


Link to post

No.It does not mean it had to had been the audience present when he said it.

 

"The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."

 

Do you believe Jesus has returned as he said he would?

Can anyone provide us wity a date Jesus returned?

 

I believe jesus is speaking dirrectly to someone in this verse and its not someone who lived 2000 years ago.

 

Edited by Shilohsfoal

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
On 11/14/2018 at 4:34 PM, Shilohsfoal said:

No.It does not mean it had to had been the audience present when he said it.

 

The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

 

Do you believe Jesus has returned as he said he would?

Can anyone provide us wity a date Jesus returned?

 

I believe jesus is speaking dirrectly to someone in this verse and its not someone who lived 2000 years ago.

 

Someone?

Share this post


Link to post

But Jesus tells his disciples not one stone will be left on top of another. And this happened in their immediate future, not thousands of years into the future.

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/16/2018 at 8:16 AM, Dave L said:

But Jesus tells his disciples not one stone will be left on top of another. And this happened in their immediate future, not thousands of years into the future.

So you know for a fact the stones in jerusalem today in this generation shall not be thrown down?

Not even the wailing wall?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Shilohsfoal said:

So you know for a fact the stones in jerusalem today in this generation shall not be thrown down?

Not even the wailing wall?

We still have the disciples as the audience he spoke to about this, not people thousands of years into the future. They would see it in their lifetimes. Does God own all the cattle in the world or just those on a thousand hills?

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Dave L said:

We still have the disciples as the audience he spoke to about this, not people thousands of years into the future. They would see it in their lifetimes. Does God own all the cattle in the world or just those on a thousand hills?

So you say nothing jesus has said pertains to you because you were not present with him 2000 years ago.Hes not talking to you because you were not his audience.

 

 

Edited by Shilohsfoal

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
6 minutes ago, Shilohsfoal said:

So you say nothing jesus has said pertains to you because you were not present with him 2000 years ago.

No, he did not say that nor did he imply it.  Simply because he believes the event "happened in their immediate future" does not suggest anyone believes Jesus had nothing to say which would pertain to us.  Don't go overboard.  Don't put words into someone else mouth.

  • Best Answer 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Origen said:

No, he did not say that nor did he imply it.  Simply because he believes the event "happened in their immediate future" does not suggest anyone believes Jesus had nothing to say which would pertain to us.  Don't go overboard.  Don't put words into someone else mouth.

Then the things jesus prophecied about the future could also pertain to this generation jesus is speaking of and not just of the apostles.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
1 minute ago, Shilohsfoal said:

Then the things jesus prophecied about the future could also pertain to this generation jesus is speaking of and not just of the apostles.

Not my point.  You claimed something concerning David L for which there is no evidence.  Don't go overboard.  Don't put words into someone else mouth.

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Shilohsfoal said:

So you say nothing jesus has said pertains to you because you were not present with him 2000 years ago.Hes not talking to you because you were not his audience.

 

 

If you consider the disciples being his present audience, because "when you see" or "then if anyone says to you" are in the second person plural. Plus, they left town when they saw it happening which means they interpreted Jesus in this way. If you consider the great Jewish Tribulation (well past) is not the same as the tribulation of the Church (the entire New Covenant era), it is pretty understandable. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
2 hours ago, Shilohsfoal said:

Then the things jesus prophecied about the future could also pertain to this generation jesus is speaking of and not just of the apostles.

Ecclesiastes 1:9-11 What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun. Is there a thing of which it is said, “See, this is new”? It has been already in the ages before us. There is no remembrance of former things, nor will there be any remembrance of later things yet to be among those who come after.
 

I view Revelation as very applicable to every generation. For example, every generation has in some way identified an anti-christ, come under persecution etc. Why isn't it plausible that what is described in Revelation is a repeating cycle that will be fulfilled in a climatic ending?
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Dave L said:

If you consider the disciples being his present audience, because "when you see" or "then if anyone says to you" are in the second person plural. Plus, they left town when they saw it happening which means they interpreted Jesus in this way. If you consider the great Jewish Tribulation (well past) is not the same as the tribulation of the Church (the entire New Covenant era), it is pretty understandable. 

So when jesus says someting like "when you see"he cant posibly talking to anyone other than thise present with him 2000 years ago?

Is that what you are claiming?

 

Im not sure whats going o here but im leaving this site.

I dont see the purpose of asking a question only to argue with someone who answers your question.

Seems like your baiting for an arguement.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

Which of these quotes Speaks of great tribulation as if it is a singular event?   Like the common term used today of 'The great tribulation' .  

 

Mat 24:21  For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. 
Rev 2:22  Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. 
Rev 7:14  And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. 
I know some of the later translations phrase some things slightly differently, I would be interested in reading any light  @Origen can add with his knowledge of the language. 

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Shilohsfoal said:

So when jesus says someting like "when you see"he cant posibly talking to anyone other than thise present with him 2000 years ago?

Is that what you are claiming?

 

Im not sure whats going o here but im leaving this site.

I dont see the purpose of asking a question only to argue with someone who answers your question.

Seems like your baiting for an arguement.

I just joined this group and hate to see you go. But if I say "I hate to see you go", who am I speaking to? If I say "You" in the second person plural,it applies only to you or any friends you might have with you. As in the case of Jesus' audience, the disciples, whom he addressed using second person plural.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
11 hours ago, Becky said:

Which of these quotes Speaks of great tribulation as if it is a singular event?   Like the common term used today of 'The great tribulation' .  

 

Mat 24:21  For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. 
Rev 2:22  Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. 
Rev 7:14  And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. 
I know some of the later translations phrase some things slightly differently, I would be interested in reading any light  @Origen can add with his knowledge of the language. 

I doubt I could answer such a question to anyone satisfaction.  There are so many issues and questions concerning methodology (i.e. exegesis and hermeneutics).  The answer someone gives to those (for they are really the defining factors regarding the text) determines ones interpretation and consequently the meaning of the text.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

Sheesh OK .. Thanks for the honest reply even if i dont like it,,,:classic_smile: Much better then being ignored 

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
2 hours ago, Becky said:

Sheesh OK .. Thanks for the honest reply even if i dont like it,,,:classic_smile: Much better then being ignored 

I would NEVER ignore you.

 

Also let me say something about methodology.

 

For example I take very, very seriously the grammar, syntax, and the semantic domain of the vocabulary.  That is always first.  Also the historical (background), cultural, theological, literary contexts must be clearly understood.  This is the methodology I use.

 

As I have said before, the Bible must be interpreted in context. But what is often not stated is that the context isn't our own or that of some theological tradition. It is the context that produced it, namely the ancient Near East/Mediterranean world. God chose people to write the biblical text, and people write using grammar, in styles understood by their peers, and with deliberate intent. We need to understand a text from their point of view not ours

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

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.


×
×
  • Create New...