a non-eschatological Coming?

[Truth7t7]

We agree that Matt 24, Mar 13, and Luke 21 are parallel readings. And that's why I focus, in particular, on Luke 21 where the meaning is crystal clear that the "Great Tribulation" encompasses the entire NT age. It is the Great Punishment of the Jewish People, beginning with the dispersion during the Roman invasion and ending with the Return of Christ. This is the Jewish Diaspora.

How it can be understood differently is beyond me. It certainly doesn't warrant a "smile," particularly since a great number of biblical scholars see it in just this way.

I think if you will meditate on it for awhile and give it some honest thought, you may change your mind, just as I did. And if you do, things may come together for you better than they ever did before. They did for me.

You refuse to acknowledge my claim in bold red below, its Randy who's in denial of presented truth, Daniel's AOD is "Future"!

Daniel's Abomination of Desolation seen in
Matthew 24:15 & Daniel 9:27 is a future event and hasn't taken place anytime in history, and it hasn't been taking place for the past 1900 years

When this Abomination takes place, the great tribulation starts, and the human man that starts it, will be present on earth to witness the second coming and his final judgement in destruction by the Lord at the "Consummation" (The End)

To claim "The Great Tribulation" represents history over the past 1900 years and counting isnt found to be supported by scripture

Daniel's (Little Horn)

This "Future" figure will be present on earth to see the (Second Coming) of Jesus Christ and final judgement, as this figure will be slain by Jesus Christ and cast into the lake of fire (Future) unfulfilled

"Future" (Second Coming, Final Judgement) Below

Daniel 7:8-11KJV
8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.
9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.
10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.
11 I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame.

This "Future" figure will be present on earth making (Abomination & Desolation) to the (Consummation) or (The Ultimate End) "Future" Event(s) Unfulfilled

Merriam-Webster
Definition of consummation

1: the act of consummating the consummation of a contract by mutual signature specifically : the consummating of a marriage
2: the ultimate end

Daniel 9:27KJV
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You refuse to acknowledge my claim in bold red below, its Randy who's in denial of presented truth, Daniel's AOD is "Future"!

You're just telling me what you believe--not *why* you believe it? I can't be in denial of something that isn't even being said! Nowhere in anything you've written does the Scripture say that the AoD is still future.

However, the AoD, as written in Dan 9, was given to be 70 Weeks of years after the 457 BC decree of King Artaxerxes. That could only have been the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem. The Roman Army was the "abomination" and the destruction of Jerusalem was the "desolation." It was historically fulfilled as a great number of biblical scholars believe.

The Roman Army "stood in the holy place," ie in the holy territory in which the temple stood, which included all of Jerusalem and its surrounding area. So when the pagan Roman Army positioned themselves around Jerusalem's walls, they were "standing in the holy place."

 

[ScottA]

You apparently don't understand what "flesh" means in Paul's writings? He's talking about the *sinful* flesh, and not generally about the human body. He's saying the *sinful flesh* cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. He's *not* saying that we cannot inherit the Kingdom *physically.*

I understand just fine.

You, on the other hand, are off on many things. You are not reconciling any of your above post with the rest of scripture:

• God is spirit.
• God is perfect.
• Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.
  
• That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
• So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
• Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.
• The dust (the flesh) will return to the earth as it was, And the spirit will return to God who gave it.
• The elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.

But I have not said that we cannot inherit the kingdom of God bodily--but rather, as Paul says, "not that body", not the flesh. And I am not advocating against our new spiritual body, but for it. For it is not the flesh that is glorified, but God whom is spirit. Nor is the spirit to be considered less than the flesh, but more.

 

[ewq1938]

We agree that Matt 24, Mar 13, and Luke 21 are parallel readings. And that's why I focus, in particular, on Luke 21 where the meaning is crystal clear that the "Great Tribulation" encompasses the entire NT age.

That's opposite of what Christ said about it. He said it would be shortened so some flesh of the saints would be saved. In Revelation Christ revealed it would be only 42 months. In your version of the Great Tribulation it is made LONGER by centuries and virtually none of the flesh of the saints are saved. Your understanding of these things are not biblical.

The Great Tribulation of the bible = 42 months/3.5 years
Yours = close to 2,000 years and counting.

 

[ewq1938]

You're just telling me what you believe--not *why* you believe it? I can't be in denial of something that isn't even being said! Nowhere in anything you've written does the Scripture say that the AoD is still future.

However, the AoD, as written in Dan 9, was given to be 70 Weeks of years after the 457 BC decree of King Artaxerxes. That could only have been the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem. The Roman Army was the "abomination" and the destruction of Jerusalem was the "desolation." It was historically fulfilled as a great number of biblical scholars believe.

The Roman Army "stood in the holy place," ie in the holy territory in which the temple stood, which included all of Jerusalem and its surrounding area. So when the pagan Roman Army positioned themselves around Jerusalem's walls, they were "standing in the holy place."

It hadn't been a holy place in a very long time:

Mat 21:12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
Mat 21:13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

The Romans did not stand in the holy place.

 

[Truth7t7]

This should not surprise you. Paul did likewise, and even taught Timothy to do the same.

But it is no small matter to argue against the clear statement made by Christ in John 14:19.

John 14:19 that you continue to cite, is nothing more than the promise of the Holy Spirit coming to the Church after the Lords ascension, and has absolutely nothing to do with the topic or argument "None"!

John 14:16-19KJV
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

 

[Truth7t7]

You're just telling me what you believe--not *why* you believe it? I can't be in denial of something that isn't even being said! Nowhere in anything you've written does the Scripture say that the AoD is still future.

However, the AoD, as written in Dan 9, was given to be 70 Weeks of years after the 457 BC decree of King Artaxerxes. That could only have been the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem. The Roman Army was the "abomination" and the destruction of Jerusalem was the "desolation." It was historically fulfilled as a great number of biblical scholars believe.

The Roman Army "stood in the holy place," ie in the holy territory in which the temple stood, which included all of Jerusalem and its surrounding area. So when the pagan Roman Army positioned themselves around Jerusalem's walls, they were "standing in the holy place."

Of course your in denial, the "Roman Army" in 70AD hasn't fulfilled the "He" nor the abomination and desolation taking place to the very "Consummation" (The End) it's future!

Focus on the word "Consummation" and respond, waiting?

This "Future" figure "He" will be present on earth making (Abomination & Desolation) to the (Consummation) or (The Ultimate End) "Future" Event(s) Unfulfilled

Merriam-Webster
Definition of consummation

1: the act of consummating the consummation of a contract by mutual signature specifically : the consummating of a marriage
2: the ultimate end

"He Shall Make It Desolate, Even Until The Consummation"

Daniel 9:27KJV
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

 

[Truth7t7]

But I have not said that we cannot inherit the kingdom of God bodily--but rather, as Paul says, "not that body", not the flesh. And I am not advocating against our new spiritual body, but for it. For it is not the flesh that is glorified, but God whom is spirit. Nor is the spirit to be considered less than the flesh, but more.

Jesus Christ was resurrected into a glorified tangible "Spiritual Body" of flesh and bone, this body entered a room with doors shut, and vanished out of the disciples sight

Jesus Christ ascended to heaven in this tangible, glorified, "Spiritual Body" of flesh and bone

1 Corinthians 15:20 & 42-44KJV
20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

John 20:26-27KJV
26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

Luke 24:30-31KJV
30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.

 

[Randy Kluth]

All partial preterists are futurists in a very tiny sense concerning this unbiblical third coming. There was no coming of Christ in 70AD. He didn't need to because the Romans didn't need any help. The Olivet Discourse is also not about 70AD in the slightest. The only people being persecuted in the Olivet Discourse are Christians not Jews of Judaism.

You are ignoring not just the text but also many, many Christian scholars who say that the Olivet Discourse was indeed about the taking down, stone by stone, of the temple in 70 AD. Arguing that seems like an absurdity to me--it is utterly obvious--so obvious that it seem ridiculous trying to argue this with anyone.

But let me first reiterate that my position, though sounding Preterist does not indicate I'm actually a Preterist. I've informed others of this many times now. Preterism is more than just belief that the Olivet Discourse centers on the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. It is actually an interpretive system that believes most all prophecy, including that in the book of Revelation, is fulfilled in the Early Church. I, however, do not believe that.

I believe in a future Antichrist, and that a long age of Jewish Tribulation fulfills biblical prophecy. This is not Preterism at all. The one thing I have in common with it is belief that the Olivet Discourse focuses on the 70 AD fall of Jerusalem, something that the Church Fathers and many other Christian scholars have believed without being Preterists.

When I said "Christ came" in the 70 AD event, I'm not at all saying he came in the physical sense. I'm saying he "came" in the same sense that the Bible says "God came" in historical acts of divine judgment. Jesus uses this same terminology in the book of Revelation when speaking to the 7 churches of Asia. And it is the very language he used in the Olivet Discourse in Luke 17 when describing "the day of the Son of Man."

You need to address the points, and not resort to attacking an eschatology that I don't subscribe to. Then we can have a decent conversation about it with much less confusion. And if necessary, we can than understand and represent one another properly and if necessary agree to disagree.

 

[Marty fox]

Yes you are one of many Preterist that deny the literal second coming is seen in Matthew 24:29-30 below

Why?

Because Preterist cant have a "Great Tribulation" seen in Matthew 24:21 and the second coming "Literally" seen in Matthew 24:29-30 taking place "Immediately After The Tribulation"

Preterist remove the "Literal" second coming seen, with symbolic allegory of a judgement on Jerusalem in 70AD, making way for their claimed 70AD "Great Tribulation"

Matthew 24:29-30KJV
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.

I am not a preterist but a partial preterist and I do see the second coming right after the great tribulation I just don’t see them in the old discourse but in other passages. The Olivit discourse was about Jerusalem and the coming on the clouds in judgement against a great tribulation on Jerusalem.

But once again please address what you think the verse which I posted are about as they are different than the description in the Olivit discourse.

 

[Marty fox]

This does not mention a rapture, nor a Second Coming. This is 1 Seal, 6 Trumpets, and 7 Thunders after the Second Coming. When Jesus Messiah the Prince finishes the final harvest with all His angels on earth, the 7th Trumpet is the victory and celebration Trumpet, claiming it is all over and finished.

The 7th Trumpet is not the start. It is the finish line. It declares the The Work of Messiah the Prince is complete per Daniel 9:24. That is when all on earth are dead. And now Jesus can start the 1,000 year reign. Because all is made subject to Him except Death. He will then reign for 1,000 years and after Satan's little season, Death itself will be defeated.

But the other verses which I posted show that the judgement and rewarding happens at the rapture and the second coming which ties into the seventh trumpet did you actually read them?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Of course your in denial, the "Roman Army" in 70AD hasn't fulfilled the "He" nor the abomination and desolation taking place to the very "Consummation" (The End) it's future!

Daniel 9:27KJV
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
[/QUOTE]

Some of this is debatable, but not critical to the understanding that the AoD takes place soon after the completion of the "70 Weeks," and not 2000 years later! A prophecy that gives a specific time table and that skips 2000 years contradicts the whole meaning of a time table!

Another version reads as follows:
"And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him/it."

My own thought about the "consummation" is that it refers not to the destruction of a "him," but rather of the destruction of an "it," namely the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.

 

[Randy Kluth]

...You are not reconciling any of your above post with the rest of scripture:

• God is spirit.
• God is perfect.
• Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.
  
• That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
• So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
• Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.
• The dust (the flesh) will return to the earth as it was, And the spirit will return to God who gave it.
• The elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.

But I have not said that we cannot inherit the kingdom of God bodily--but rather, as Paul says, "not that body", not the flesh. And I am not advocating against our new spiritual body, but for it. For it is not the flesh that is glorified, but God whom is spirit. Nor is the spirit to be considered less than the flesh, but more.

If you accept that we are bodily resurrected and inherit the Kingdom bodily, I don't understand why this is a matter of life and death for you, and an issue that divides you from other Christians? My point, which you claim to understand, is that the Bible says the *sinful flesh* cannot inherit the Kingdom of God--not that we do not inherit the Kingdom of God *bodily.*

So what is the problem? The perfection of Deity is not the issue, so I don't know why you even bring it up? The importance of our own immortalization/perfection also is not an issue.

So the big problem appears to be beneath the surface, and is a personal issue with you. We certainly don't agree on some of the language and on what the emphasis is with respect to the pertinent Scriptures.

But obviously, we both agree that there is a bodily, physical resurrection and inheritance. It seems you just want to be disagreeable? If so, why would that be? Do you belong to a disagreeable Christian denomination, or are you an isolationist--a hermit Christian?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I don't agree, and you don't sound like you're knowledgeable about the Greek--I'm not either. However, I only have to ask my brother. I need not trouble him--your argument is illogical. Reference to a group of people do not have to have a time stamp attached to them in order to identify them in a particular time frame--it is the context that does it.

In English it would be like saying *this* generation, referring to right now. The word "this" would identify how I'm using the word "generation," which otherwise could refer to many other things.

If you really wish to look at it, you would have to know some Greek and see how the word "generation" is used. I think you will find that it does not have to apply to a "race of people." Otherwise, Jesus would've been condemning an entire race of people to Hell for all time! Jesus condemned his generation to damnation, and indicated by the context that he was referring to those Jews in his time who were rejecting him permanently.

If you understood this properly, you would agree with me, that Jesus was identifying his own generation as the ones subject to the coming judgment, the fall of the temple. It was that particular generation that would lose their temple, and thus lose Judaism. And indeed, that is where Judaism ceased from supporting a covenant relationship between God and Israel.

I took koine Greek in bible college and continue to study often.

No Jesus did not condemn that generation to hell. He did condemn them to the judgment of 70Ad which He warned about in the Luke passage of the Olivet Discourse.

I told you it was that generation. it was the judgment of 70AD that fulfilled Luke 21:20-24. Most of Luke is devoted to that particular generation (in time) Matthew 24 is mostly all future.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

i mostly recommend them as a good step up from a plain english translation, and they generally/always offer at least an approach to the Greek tense...but again, what would you recommend in their place?

Concordances and lexicons are good first steps, but language books and parsing guides are much much better. They helpo show when an noun or verb is constructed in such a way the nuance of meaning it gives where lexicons and concordances give basic definitions.

Wuest Word studies is a good intermediate 4 volume st.

Kittels 10 volume Greek New Testament is awesome! Online there is blue letter bible and bible hub which are great linguistic tools.

So, just tell me what doesn’t make sense in there and I’ll clarify it

This whole phrase:

"However, you might spend a bit of time looking for any of the following, “read the Word, teach the Word, study the Word,” etc, anything other than (hear) the Word iow" I just do not know what you were getting at.

he said, gnostically? I wouldn't be writing that in stone just yet iiwy

Well I would. Tongues is a gift for communicating the good news and edifying an individual, not for day to day communicating.

 

[Marty fox]

But the other verses which I posted show that the judgement and rewarding happens at the rapture and the second coming which ties into the seventh trumpet did you actually read them?

The Olivit discourse was a private conversation between Jesus and only four deciples

 

[Truth7t7]

The Olivit discourse was about Jerusalem and the coming on the clouds in judgement against a great tribulation on Jerusalem.

But once again please address what you think the verse which I posted are about as they are different than the description in the Olivit discourse.

Marty you are in the "Preterist" camp, and I'm fully aware your "Partial"

Marty your claim that the "Literal" second coming of Jesus Christ "Isn't Seen" below is willful disregard in removal of scripture in my opinion, and impossible to have honest dialogue in my opinion

Why Do Preterist Remove The "Literal" Second Coming Seen Below?

Because Preterist cant justify a "Great Tribulation" seen in Matthew 24:21 and the second coming "Literally" taking place as seen in Matthew 24:29-30 "Immediately After The Tribulation" as this second coming is future

Preterist remove the "Literal" second coming seen, with symbolic allegory of a judgement on Jerusalem in 70AD, making way for their claimed 70AD "Great Tribulation" with Roman Armies in destruction of Jerusalem

Matthew 24:29-30KJV
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.

 

[Truth7t7]

The Olivit discourse was a private conversation between Jesus and only four deciples

Marty you deny the "Literal" second coming of Jesus Christ is seen below, and remove this in a symbolic Judgement upon Jerusalem, something not to be overlooked as major deviation from orthodoxy is openly seen

Matthew 24:29-30KJV
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.

 

[Truth7t7]

I told you it was that generation. it was the judgment of 70AD that fulfilled Luke 21:20-24. Most of Luke is devoted to that particular generation (in time) Matthew 24 is mostly all future.

The generation spoken to in Luke 21:25-28 is a future generation that will be "eyewitnesses" of the "future" great tribulation and second coming of Jesus Christ in the heavens

The 70AD generation didnt look up and see their redemption in the clouds of heaven, it's a future event unfulfilled, your claim is false

Will you also remove the "Literal" second coming seen, with symbolic allegory as the preterist?

Luke 21:25-28KJV
25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

 

[ewq1938]

You are ignoring not just the text but also many, many Christian scholars who say that the Olivet Discourse was indeed about the taking down, stone by stone, of the temple in 70 AD. Arguing that seems like an absurdity to me--it is utterly obvious--so obvious that it seem ridiculous trying to argue this with anyone.

Everything said and taking place before He went to and sat on the mount is pre-Olivet Discourse. Anyone who disagrees is wrong.

But let me first reiterate that my position, though sounding Preterist does not indicate I'm actually a Preterist. I've informed others of this many times now. Preterism is more than just belief that the Olivet Discourse centers on the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. It is actually an interpretive system that believes most all prophecy, including that in the book of Revelation, is fulfilled in the Early Church. I, however, do not believe that.

Belief that most of the Olivet Discourse is of the past is evidence of PP.

I believe in a future Antichrist, and that a long age of Jewish Tribulation fulfills biblical prophecy. This is not Preterism at all. The one thing I have in common with it is belief that the Olivet Discourse focuses on the 70 AD fall of Jerusalem, something that the Church Fathers and many other Christian scholars have believed without being Preterists.

So? You are a partial partial preterist lol....same thing.

When I said "Christ came" in the 70 AD event, I'm not at all saying he came in the physical sense.

PP apologetics. Any idea of a coming at that time is untrue. Christ never said he would come or have anything to do with 70AD.

I'm saying he "came" in the same sense that the Bible says "God came" in historical acts of divine judgment. Jesus uses this same terminology in the book of Revelation when speaking to the 7 churches of Asia.

All figurative meanings. He never came to do those things in the past. He will accomplish those things in the one and only coming that has not yet happened.

You need to address the points, and not resort to attacking an eschatology that I don't subscribe to.

You do subscribe to it. The events of the Olivet Discourse are future not past, ALL OF THEM are future. The Great Tribulation has NOT yet started.