The Preterists and Matthew 24:34

[tetelestai]

On the other hand, the word "family" (the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) fits perfectly.

That makes absolutely no sense Jerry.

Your illogical claim would read like the following:

"This "Jewish family" will not pass away until all these things take place. When all these things take place, then the "Jewish family" will pass away."

This especially doesn't make sense to a Dispensationalist/Futurist/Premillinnialist like you Jerry, who claims the Jews will reign with Jesus for a thousand years after the period described in Matt 24:34.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

It wasn't a world-wide judgement.

If it was a world-wide judgement, then why did Jesus tell only those in Judaea to flee to the hills when they saw Jerusalem surrounded?

(Luke 21:20-21) “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city.

The world wide judgment will happen in the future AFTER the great tribulation will be over:

"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; Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth (oikoumene): for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory" (Lk.21:25-27).​

The great tribulation will be over by the time the signs will be seen in the sky (Mt.24:39) so the events described at Luke 21:25-27 will happen AFTER the great tribulation.

And it speaks of "those things which are coming on the earth (oikoumene)."

The Greek word "oikoumene" is used by the Lord Jesus at another place in the same discourse:

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world (oikoumene) for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come" (Mt.24:14).​

By the context we can understand the meaning of that Greek word as referring to this:

"For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth" (Lk.21:32-35).​

It is impossible that "generation" is the correct translation in Matthew 24 because the first century generation did not see a world wide judgment.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

That makes absolutely no sense Jerry.

Your illogical claim would read like the following:

"This "Jewish family" will not pass away until all these things take place. When all these things take place, then the "Jewish family" will pass away."

It makes perfect sence because one of the meanings of the Greek word genea is "family":

"genea,, a/j, Ion. geneh,, h/j( h`, Ep. dat. geneh/fi: (gi,gnomai): I. of the persons in a family, 1. race, stock, family, Hom., etc.; Pria,mou g. Il.; evk geneh/j according to his family, Ib.; geneh/| by birth-right, Od.; geneh.n Aivtwlo,j by descent, Il.:-of horses, a breed, Ib.:-generally, geneh,n in kind, Hdt.:-also a tribe, nation, Persw/n g. Aesch. 2. a race, generation, oi[hper fu,llwn geneh. toih,de kai. avndrw/n Il.; du,o geneai. avnqrw,pwn Ib. 3. offspring, Orac. ap. Hdt.; and of a single person, Soph. II. of time or place in reference to birth: 1. a birth-place, geneh. evpi. li,mnh| Gugai,h| Il.; of an eagle's eyrie, Od. 2. age, time of life, esp. in phrases geneh/| new,tatoj( presbu,tatoj youngest, eldest, in age, or by birth, Hom. 3. time of birth, evk geneh/j Hdt.; avpo. g. Xen" (The Lidell-Scott Greek-English Lexicon).​

 

[tetelestai]

And it speaks of "those things which are coming on the earth (oikoumene)."

"oikoumene" isn't used in Luke 21:35

The Greek word for "earth" in Luke 21:35 is "gh", Strongs G1093

One of the definitions for "gh" from Strongs is:

5) a country, land enclosed within fixed boundaries, a tract of land, territory, region

(Luke 2:1 KJV) And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world ( oikoumenh) should be taxed.

As we see above, the Greek word "oikoumenh" does not always refer to the entire world.

 

[tetelestai]

It makes perfect sence because one of the meanings of the Greek word genea is "family":

When does the "family" pass away Jerry?

Matt 24:34 specifically implies that the "generation" will eventually pass away after "all the things" happen.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Yes, and I can understand both why you find this expression subtle,
and why historically it was easily misinterpreted and then paraphrased
and metamorphized into something with a completely different and
false meaning.

I still do not understand your translation of the following verse:

"No one knows the day or the hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor even the Son, if not the Father." ​

Seems to me it is conditional. And the condition is "if not the Father."

If not the Father what?

From the context it seems to be saying "if the Father does not know the day or the hour."

So it is saying that no one (including the Son) does not know the day and the hour if the Father does not.

Is that right?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

When does the "family" pass away Jerry?

in the eternal state.

When did the generation living in the first century see a world wide judgment, tet?

 

[OCTOBER23]

GENERATION MEANS A FAMILY OF PEOPLE = THE JEWS.

Other peoples are gone but ....

The Jews continue until this day even though Hitler tried to destroy them.

Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,

----------------------------------------
1074 γενεά genea ghen-eh-ah’

from (a presumed derivative of) 1085; n f; TDNT-1:662,114; { See TDNT 152 }

AV-generation 37, time 2, age 2, nation 1; 42

1) fathered, birth, nativity
2) that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family
2a) the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy
2b) metaph. a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character
2b1) esp. in a bad sense, a perverse nation
3) the whole multitude of men living at the same time
4) an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied by each successive generation),
a space of 30-33 years

 

[Jerry Shugart]

"oikoumene" isn't used in Luke 21:35

But it is at Luke 21:26.

The Greek word for "earth" in Luke 21:35 is "gh", Strongs G1093

One of the definitions for "gh" from Strongs is:

5) a country, land enclosed within fixed boundaries, a tract of land, territory, region

Yes, but it does not have that meaning unless the context demands it. And there is nothing in the context which even hints that just a county is in view. The context speaks of oikoumene instead.

(Luke 2:1 KJV) And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world ( oikoumenh) should be taxed.

Here the word applies to the Roman empire. But there was no judgment which came upon all them that dwell upon the face of the whole Roman Empire in the first century:

For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole Roman Empire.

Are you willing to argue that a judgment came upon all them who dwelled on the face of the Roman empire in the first century?

 

[john w]

Josphus tells.............

Vs.

"Darby..."-noTettosterone on TOL every third "post"

You follow Flavey Joe, Josephus, a Christ rejector, like yourself.

Why do you follow the teaching, "inventions," of "fallable" men, punk? You taught us that.

Fraud.

"Josphus"-Tet.


And learn how to spell, use proper grammar, and the quote tags, punk.

You also taught us that.

 

[john w]

Yes it did.

Let's look at the following verse:

(Isaiah 19:1) A prophecy against Egypt: See, the LORD rides on a swift cloud and is coming to Egypt. The idols of Egypt tremble before him, and the hearts of the Egyptians melt with fear.

In the above verse did the Lord literally ride on a literal cloud into Egypt?

Did the Lord literally come to Egypt?

Answer: No

We know from history, that the fulfillment of Isaiah 19:1 was when the Assyrian army invaded Egypt.

You plagiarized that, punk, which is against TOL rules. Delete that post. You've been warned.

 

[tetelestai]

When did the generation living in the first century see a world wide judgment, tet?

It wasn't a worldwide judgment.

If it was, then why does the warning from Jesus center around Jerusalem and Judaea only?

(Luke 21:20-21) 20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city.

How could it be worldwide if only those in Judaea are told to flee to the mountains?

Go read a secular history book of what took place in Jerusalem and Judaea from 66AD - 70AD, and then read Luke 21:20-21

 

[john w]

If so, then why does the warning from Jesus center around Jerusalem and Judaea only?

(Luke 21:20-21) 20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city.

How could it be worldwide if only those in Judaea are told to flee to the mountains?

Go read a secular history book of what took place in Jerusalem and Judaea from 66AD - 70AD, and then read Luke 21:20-21

I warned you not to plagiarize, Craigie.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

It wasn't a worldwide judgment.

If it was, then why does the warning from Jesus center around Jerusalem and Judaea only?

Then He is speaking about the great tribulation which will be centered in Jerusalem. But these words are describing what will happen after the great tribulation is over:

"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; Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth (oikoumene)" (Lk.21:25-26).

We have already been over the meaning of the Greek word oikoumene and it covers a much greater land mass than Jerusalem and Judaea.

I guess that before this is over I will have to repeat the same thing over and over because you just don't get it.

 

[tetelestai]

Then He is speaking about the great tribulation which will be centered in Jerusalem.

Jerry, read the entire chapter.

Luke 21 starts out with Jesus telling the Disciples that not one stone would be left standing upon another.

Then the Disciples ask when will these things take place.

From verse 8-27 Jesus tells the Disciples all the things that must take place before the temple is destroyed and not one stone left standing upon another.

We know that in 70AD the Romans destroyed the temple, and not one stone was left standing upon another of the temple.

We also know that some of the Disciples were still alive in 70AD when this happened. That's because Jesus told them that some of them would still be alive when it happened.

To claim Luke 21, Matt 24, and Mark 13 is the yet future, is intellectual dishonesty.

Jesus didn't say anything about two temples being destroyed.

Yet, that's what you are claiming.

But these words are describing what will happen after the great tribulation is over:

"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; Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth (oikoumene)" (Lk.21:25-26).

No, it's describing what happened before the temple was destroyed and not one stone was left standing upon another.

We have already been over the meaning of the Greek word oikoumene and it covers a much greater land mass than Jerusalem and Judaea.

No it doesn't.

Which is why Jesus only warned those in Jerusalem and Judaea.

You do know Judaea was a Roman Province?

Is there going to be another Roman Province called Judaea again in the future?

Think about how foolish you sound.

I guess that before this is over I will have to repeat the same thing over and over because you just don't get it.

You guys embarrass yourselves trying to make Luke 21, Mark 13, and Matthew 24 mean something they don't.

You'd be better off taking the C.S. Lewis route, and claim the verse is wrong, instead of what you're trying to do. At least C. S. Lewis didn't look as foolish as you are by trying to make the verse mean something it doesn't.

"It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible." - C. S. Lewis re: Matt 24:34

 

[Anto9us]

all over in 70 AD

Christians DID SEE an abomination of Desolation

DID FLEE to Pella

if a "world-wide judgement" was coming -- what good to FLEE TO THE HILLS ???

what good would THAT do?

non-Prets -- yer BEAR-CAUGHT

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jesus didn't say anything about two temples being destroyed.

Yet, that's what you are claiming.

Since you have no answer to the fact that the Lord Jesus described a world wide judgment at the end of the age you run off to something else. Now I will address your remarks about the temple.

By the words of the Prophet Haggai we can see what might be described as a "principle of continuity" in the history of the temple. The temple that stood at the time of the Lord could be leveled to the ground and then be rebuilt and still be considered the same temple. At the time of the rebuilding of the temple after it had been destroyed, Haggi says:

"Who is left among you that saw this house in its former glory?" (Hag.2:3).​

The Lord of hosts says, "The latter splendor of this house shall be greater than the former"(v.9).

So a rebuilt temple can be considered a continuation of the two preceding temples according to the words of the Lord. Therefore any future temple will not have to be rebuilt with the same stones as was the temple standing when the Lord Jesus walked the earth in order to be considered the same temple.

 

[Right Divider]

all over in 70 AD

Christians DID SEE an abomination of Desolation

DID FLEE to Pella

if a "world-wide judgement" was coming -- what good to FLEE TO THE HILLS ???

what good would THAT do?

non-Prets -- yer BEAR-CAUGHT

What fallacious logic. Just because it's world-wide does NOT mean that everyplace will be equally unsafe for those that God will protect.

 

[tetelestai]

Since you have no answer to the fact that the Lord Jesus described a world wide judgment at the end of the age you run off to something else. Now I will address your remarks about the temple.

It wasn't worldwide anymore than Caesar Augustus collecting taxes worldwide.

If it was worldwide, then Jesus wouldn't have only warned those in Judaea to flee to the mountains.

By the words of the Prophet Haggai we can see what might be described as a "principle of continuity" in the history of the temple.

The Prophet Haggai was comparing Solomon's Temple with the Second Temple that the Jews had just rebuilt after returning from Babylon.

The temple that stood at the time of the Lord could be leveled to the ground and then be rebuilt and still be considered the same temple.

Says who?

If that's the case why wasn't the Second Temple the same as Solomon's Temple.

The Second Temple didn't even have the Ark of the Covenant in it.

At the time of the rebuilding of the temple after it had been destroyed, Haggi says:

"Who is left among you that saw this house in its former glory?" (Hag.2:3).​

The Lord of hosts says, "The latter splendor of this house shall be greater than the former"(v.9).

So a rebuilt temple can be considered a continuation of the two preceding temples according to the words of the Lord. Therefore any future temple will not have to be rebuilt with the same stones as was the temple standing when the Lord Jesus walked the earth in order to be considered the same temple.

Nowhere in the Bible does anyone speak of building a third temple.

Don't you think Jesus, Peter, John, or Paul would have mentioned that after the Second Temple was destroyed with not one stone standing upon another that another temple would be built?

The concept of a third temple directly contradicts the New Covenant.

 

[tetelestai]

What fallacious logic. Just because it's world-wide does NOT mean that everyplace will be equally unsafe for those that God will protect.

You guys are unbelievable.

Now you want us to believe theres going to be a worldwide judgment that effects billions of people, but only a few people in Judaea (which doesn't exist anymore) are to flee to the hills, and of the thousands and thousands of cities in the world, only Jerusalem is the city that no one is supposed to go to in this alleged worldwide judgment.

Don't you guys ever get exhausted trying to defend the false teachings of Darby?