The Preterists and Matthew 24:34

[patrick jane]

Tet says -
If that's not bad enough, you want us to believe that there's a 2,000 year gap in the middle of Matt 16:27


Tet says that already happened - everything did, even Revelation. we are in heaven now; no more pain, suffering or death, no more sadness or weeping - HIS preterism is a sloppy mess -

Tet preaches this happened in A.D. 70, ask him -

View attachment 19861

 

[daqq]

if you believe what Nazaroo said about the Lord Jesus being omniscient while He walked the earth perhaps you can answer what I said here:

Then explain what He said here:

"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only" (Mat.24:36).​

The Father knew something which the Lord Jesus did not know so how can you say that the Lord Jesus was omniscient when He walked the earth?

Yea, I was a little uneasy about that word "omniscience" but that was not really the thrust of what I was agreeing with, rather, the repletion or fullness of the Spirit which Yeshua received upon immersion: what I would rather say is everything that any one man is allowed to know, (because the Father is greater). However the point still stands that because of Deuteronomy 18:15-22 anything Yeshua "foretold" would must needs come to pass shortly thereafter unless he gave it a distant future timing because the Torah passage clearly states that if the thing which he says follows not, nor comes to pass, then we are not to fear, (respect the words of) that prophet because he has spoke presumptuously. The people in the first century did not have two thousand years to wait and see if the words spoken in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 would come to pass in our future. Therefore those things which Yeshua spoke in the Olivet Discourse did indeed come to pass beginning at Golgotha, and they continue to come to pass, each in his or her own appointed times: times appointed by the Father and known only to the Father.

 

[daqq]

This riddle is easy:

We've already shown what Mark says. (Post #125)


But of that day and that hour knows no man,
no, not the angels who are in heaven,
neither the Son, but the Father. (KJV 2000)

Περὶ δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης καὶ τῆς ὥρας οὐδεὶς οἶδεν
οὐδὲ οἱ ἄγγελοι οἱ ἐν οὐρανῷ
οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ (Greek text, no significant variants)

'εἰ' means "if" and 'μὴ' means "not".

Thus,
"No one knows the day or the that hour,
not even the angels in heaven,
nor even the Son, if not the Father." (Literal translation)

Matthew is a late church production,
and this 'genius' who created the Greek version of Matthew also misread Mark.

As a result, later bumbling translators mistranslated Mark too,
after the fact.

Not surprisingly, other parts of Mark have been mistranslated too,
in order to please those who have made a life-long habit of
rejecting the Food Laws:

Mark 7:14-23 - Worse than Misinterpretations about Alcohol


Matthew is the latest of the gospels, and suffers the most
wrongheaded editing flaws.



For instance, Matthew eliminates 99% of the Social Gospel
and Good News to the poor,
for the purpose of attracting rich Jews in the diaspora
to the new movement.

Why Matthew was written LAST and is secondary


(2) Matthew omits all the Parables and Teachings on the Poor:

Luke 12:13-21 - Parable of the Rich Fool (Matt. deleted)
Luke 14:12-14 - Invite the Poor, Injured Blind (Matt. deleted)
Luke 16:19-31 - Parable of Rich Man & Lazarus (Matt. deleted)
Luke 21:1-4 - Parable of Poor Widow's Penny (Matt. deleted)

The accumulated effect is obvious.
The Poor have been entirely deleted from the Gospel,
along with the issue of poverty.


(3) Matthew omits most of the negative references to Judaism:

Luke 10:13-16 - Woe to those who reject the 70 (Matt. deleted)
Luke 10:29-36 - Parable of the Good Samaritan (Matt. deleted)
Luke 11:5-8 - Parable of the Persistent Neighbour (Matt. deleted)
Luke 11:24-26 - Parable of the Unclean spirit returning (Matt. deleted)
Luke 11:37-54 - WOE to the Pharisees and Lawyers (Matt. edited, moved to Matt. 23:1-36)
Luke 12:10 - The Unpardonable Sin (Matt. deleted)
Luke 12:49-53 - "I bring Division" (Matt. deleted)
Luke 15:11-32 - Parable of the Prodigal Son (Matt. deleted)
Luke 17:1-4 - Forgiving 77 times 7 (Matt. deleted)
Luke 17:11-19 - 10 Lepers healed, only Foreigner returns (Matt. deleted)
Luke 18:9-14 - Parable of Tax Collector forgiven (Matt. deleted)
Luke 23:6-12 - Jesus faces Herod (Matt. deleted)

Jerome, Eusebius, and Epiphanius are a few who freely admit that they saw and-or received copies of Hebrew or Aramaic manuscripts, (Gospel of the Ebionites and the so-called original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew which may or may not be also called the Gospel of the Nazoreans) which they said contained heresies and then Jerome freely admits translating his into Greek, (and no doubt the "heresies" were "corrected" at the same time for the benefit of all). :crackup:

18. But since the Gospel (written) in Hebrew characters which has come into our hands enters the threat not against the man who had hid (the talent), but against him who had lived dissolutely - for he (the master) had three servants: one who squandered his master's substance with harlots and flute-girls, one who multiplied the gain, and one who hid the talent; and accordingly one was accepted (with joy), another merely rebuked, and another cast into prison - I wonder whether in Matthew the threat which is uttered after the word against the man who did nothing may not refer to him, but by epanalepsis to the first who had feasted and drunk with the drunken.

(Eusebius, Theophania 22 [on Matthew 25:14-15])
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/nazoreans-ogg.html

In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use, which we have recently translated out of Hebrew into Greek, and which is called by most people the authentic (Gospel) of Matthew, the man who had the withered hand is described as a mason who pleaded for help in the following words: "I was a mason and earned (my) livelihood with (my) hands; I beseech thee, Jesus, to restore me to my health that I may not with ignominy have to beg for my bread."

(Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 2 [on Matthew 12:13])
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/nazoreans-ogg.html

This riddle is easy:

We've already shown what Mark says. (Post #125)


But of that day and that hour knows no man,
no, not the angels who are in heaven,
neither the Son, but the Father. (KJV 2000)

Περὶ δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης καὶ τῆς ὥρας οὐδεὶς οἶδεν
οὐδὲ οἱ ἄγγελοι οἱ ἐν οὐρανῷ
οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ (Greek text, no significant variants)

'εἰ' means "if" and 'μὴ' means "not".

Same thing happens in another interesting place:

Matthew 11:27 KJV
27. All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

"No one knows the Son if not the Father; neither does anyone know the Father if not the Son, and [to] whomever the Son wills to reveal [him]", (also Luke 10:22).

 

[Nazaroo]

Jerome, Eusebius, and Epiphanius are a few who freely admit that they saw and-or received copies of Hebrew or Aramaic manuscripts, (Gospel of the Ebionites and the so-called original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew which may or may not be also called the Gospel of the Nazoreans) which they said contained heresies and then Jerome freely admits translating his into Greek, (and no doubt the "heresies" were "corrected" at the same time for the benefit of all). :crackup:








Same thing happens in another interesting place:

Matthew 11:27 KJV
27. All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

"No one knows the Son if not the Father; neither does anyone know the Father if not the Son, and [to] whomever the Son wills to reveal [him]", (also Luke 10:22).

Great points, thanks for reading and posting!

peace
Nazaroo

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Thus,
"No one knows the day or the that hour,
not even the angels in heaven,
nor even the Son, if not the Father." (Literal translation)

Which Literal Translation? How about this literal translation?:

"Now concerning that day or hour no one is aware - neither the messengers in heaven, nor the Son - except the Father" (Mk.13:32; Concordant Literal Version).​

And this one:

"But concerning that day and the hour, no one knows, not the angels, those in Heaven, nor the Son, except the Father" (Mk.13:32; Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, "Literal Translation," [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000], p.157).​

 

[Nazaroo]

Which Literal Translation? How about this literal translation?:

"Now concerning that day or hour no one is aware - neither the messengers in heaven, nor the Son - except the Father" (Mk.13:32; Concordant Literal Version).​

And this one:

"But concerning that day and the hour, no one knows, not the angels, those in Heaven, nor the Son, except the Father" (Mk.13:32; Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, "Literal Translation," [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000], p.157).​

Both the Concordat and (I presume) Young's Literal (1880s)
are inaccurate here. Young's was done at the turn of the 2nd last
century, before the papyri were discovered and scholars knew
anything about the Greek of Jesus' day.

The Greek word for "except" is 'plen'. (πλην)

It is used in single clauses to add modifying phrases that
limit the verb action in the clause.

A compound sentence consisting of more than one clause
is an entirely different animal,
and Mark 13:32 is a multiple clause compound sentence,
which only has an appearance of a single clause because of
a very common phenomenon in both Greek and English called Elipsis.

Ellipsis is where the verb in the second clause is skipped
because it is the same verb as in the first clause.

To fully reconstruct the sentence by including the words
dropped through Ellipsis, the sentence would read as follows:

Περὶ δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης καὶ τῆς ὥρας οὐδεὶς οἶδεν
οὐδὲ οἱ ἄγγελοι οἱ ἐν οὐρανῷ
οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ [γινώσκει] (verb dropped v. Ellipsis)
(Greek text, no significant variants)

But of that day and that hour knows no man,
no, not the angels who are in heaven,
neither the Son, if not the Father. (with original Ellipsis)

But of that day and that hour knows no man,
no, not the angels who are in heaven,
neither the Son, if the Father does not know. (Ellipsis restored)

Because English is less inflected than Greek,
and because English special tenses are formed by compounding
and combining verbs with either 'to be' or 'to do',
we also have to add "to do" in English.

For instance, English doesn't have a true verb declension
for the PERFECT PAST TENSE, so we make up the past tense
using the word 'have' and form a compound verb:

I have said,
You have said (no sing. or plural either)
He/she has said (no male or female forms either)
They have said (3rd person same as 1st person)
You have said (2nd person plural same as singular)
We have said (1st person plural same as singular).

You can see that various tenses and moods are created in English
by adding a few common verbs to the normal verb forms.

Also, in English, but not in Greek, the two conjoining particles
must be split around the compound verb,
so that "if" and "not" are separated and "not" is inserted
between the two verbs.

In Greek this is not allowed but instead the "if" and "not"
stay together, because there is no need to separate them.
The verb form itself contains all the information needed to
detect mood and tense.

 

[Sonnet]

It has been shown several times on TOL that Christ's foretelling of these events hinges on a conditional particle in the Greek that goes largely unacknowledged in all English translations; that IF a certain condition was met, the generation standing before Him would have lived to see those events come to pass. However, that condition did not come to pass, so that generation did not see what He said they might.

Wouldn't that make Jesus' words redundant?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Both the Concordat and (I presume) Young's Literal (1880s) are inaccurate here. Young's was done at the turn of the 2nd last
century, before the papyri were discovered and scholars knew
anything about the Greek of Jesus' day.

You presume wrong. I did not quote Young at all. Instead, I quoted the Interlinear Greek-English New Testament of which Jay Green is the Editor and Translator. It was first published in 1980. The CLV was first published first in 1909.

From which Greek expert do you quote from here?

But of that day and that hour knows no man,
no, not the angels who are in heaven,
neither the Son, if not the Father. (with original Ellipsis)

And here?:

But of that day and that hour knows no man,
no, not the angels who are in heaven,
neither the Son, if the Father does not know

In both of these translations the meaning is clear--the Lord Jesus did not know the day or the hour:

"But of that day and that hour knows no man, no, not the angels who are in heaven, neither the Son..."​

Besides that, neither translation makes a lick of sense.

By the way, what are your credentials in the Greek language?

 

[Right Divider]

No they can't.

Partial fulfillment is a myth that Dispensationalists have made up.

You're dangerously close to making it onto the "dumb as a box of rocks" list.

That wasn't a "partial fulfillment"

Jesus waited to tell them later when the days of vengeance would take place:

(Luke 21:22 KJV) For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

Talk about DOUBLE-TALK and double-mindedness!

Jesus announced that the FIRST PART (i.e, minus the day of vengeance) was "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears" (Luke 4:21) and then LATER (according to both scripture and YOU) He told them of the FUTURE fulfillment of the "days of vengeance".

You need to have your head examined.

Verse 20 tells us when the days of vengeance would take place:

(Luke 21:20 KJV) And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

This happened in 66AD

The "Days of Vengeance" took place from 66AD - 70AD (3.5 years)

Even if you are correct, that means that there was 30 YEARS between the fulfillment of TWO PARTS of the SAME SENTENCE IN PROPHECY. But, still, according to the great Tet, the first PART was not a PARTial fulfillment. You're NUTS!

Christ Jesus didn't have a misunderstanding. It's you who has the misunderstanding.

You think that Jesus told His Disciples that some of them would not taste death for an event that would take place 6 days later. Especially considering that up to that point in time not one Disciple or follower of Jesus had been martyred.

Why would Jesus tell them that "Some" of them would not taste death when everyone of them was still alive 6 days later?

If that's not bad enough, you want us to believe that there's a 2,000 year gap in the middle of Matt 16:27

Give it up, your Dispensationalism is a mess.

What keeps God from doing this? Your high and mighty OPINION? :cigar:

 

[john w]

If that's not bad enough, you want us to believe that there's a 2,000 year gap in the middle of Matt 16:27

Like your 35-40 year, or so, "gap," between when the law ended, according to you, at the cross(satanic-made up), was reinstituted, in early Acts, until 70 AD, when there was, according to you a "OC/NC overlap?"

Lile the 6000, or so, year "gap," between the promise of a redeemer, and its fulfillment? And on, and on,........

You deceiving Preterist punk.

 

[Nazaroo]

You presume wrong. I did not quote Young at all. Instead, I quoted the Interlinear Greek-English New Testament of which Jay Green is the Editor and Translator. It was first published in 1980. The CLV was first published first in 1909.

From which Greek expert do you quote from here?

Thanks for naming your source here.

I don't rely upon 'lonestar' translations, even popular teachers like
Jay Green.

If you want a real Greek grammar beyond the Beginner's Greek workbooks,
and student texts,
I am recommending these two extensive and important works,
probably the best grammars ever written on Greek including Koine and NT:

Biblical Greek: Illustrated By Examples By Maximilian Zerwick - English edition From The Fourth Latin Edition By Joseph Smith (Subsidia Biblica) 'The success which attended the Latin Graecitas Biblica from its first (1944) to its revised and enlarged fourth Edition (1960) suggested the advisability of an English translation. The purpose of the present treatise was not so much a purely scientific or philological one, as that of encouraging future ministers of the Word to have recourse to the original Greek text. This accounts for the multiplication of examples to illustrate the exegetical importance of the study of the Greek and also for the fact that attention has been given almost exclusively to points of syntax, morphology being relegated to a few remarks in the Conclusion (M. Zerwick S.J.). Greek Grammar by Smythe ' Paperback – May 23, 2014 by Joseph Smith SJ (Adapter), Maximilian Zerwick (Author)

and also:

Herbert Weir Smyth (August 8, 1857 – July 16, 1937) was an American classical scholar. His comprehensive grammar of ancient Greek has become a standard reference on the subject in English, comparable to William Watson Goodwin's, whom he succeeded as Eliott Professor of Greek Literature at Harvard University. Smyth's Grammar and here: is available online

These are considered the very TOP Greek grammars ever written,
and available in English.

Both have extensive sections / chapters on Conditional sentences
and the Optative moods.

They are nothing like 'toy' grammars popularly used in seminaries
and Bible colleges, such as Green's, Winer's, or Mounce's terse
textbooks for beginner's courses.

Smyth's for instance is nearly 1,000 pages.

In both of these translations the meaning is clear--the Lord Jesus did not know the day or the hour:

"But of that day and that hour knows no man, no, not the angels who are in heaven, neither the Son..."​

Besides that, neither translation makes a lick of sense.

You have now (deliberately?) left off the complete Conditional sentence,
by dropping the final clause entirely.

I would ask you to be fair to readers here.

By the way, what are your credentials in the Greek language?

I have also written a Koine Greek grammar myself,
but I will not be linking directly to that,
because I wish to retain anonymity and also avoid promoting my own work.

For this purpose Smyth's (Harvard) is adequate.

I would begin with his introduction to the Optative mood in paragraph 357.

You'll need to move to Part III after that.

This link will give you a downloadable .pdf version:
http://cdn.textkit.net/hws_Greek_Grammar_AR5.pdf

Discussion of the Ellipsis of the verb (which I mentioned previously)
is found in paragraph 944 (pg 261 fwd).
But this is discussed concerning Conditional sentences in particular
in paragraphs 2345 and fwd (pg 530 fwd),
and especially also para 2349-2352 (pg 531 fwd),

The Optative Moods are discussed in more detail on pg 406 fwd,
(paragraphs 1814 - 1827)

Conditional Sentences are introduced and discussed from pgs 512-537,
(para 2290 fwd)

By far Conditional Sentences are found most frequently in John's gospel,
and these are mostly expressed using the Negative particle, and frequently
with Ellipsis. All of them use "ei" ("if") to coordinate two or more clauses.

This is discussed extensively in the following paragraphs:


The particle "ei" ("if") is introduced with its contraction/combination with "an" (optative signalers)
that is "ean" (= ei + an), in para. 2354 fwd (pg 533...)
its use with the optative verb form is found from para. 2356 fwd.

Smyth doesn't usually discuss the evolution of the Greek syntax in these paragraphs,
but that lacuna has been filled by other researchers of both Classical and Koine.

Because Koine Greek was still very much a 'lego'-type building process,
with combinations of particles being preferred, and new ideas and nuances
being coined at the very time of Christ (it was a living language),
you will see interesting things such as "ei kai" ('if also') taking on an idiomatic meaning,
something like the many advanced English expressions like "although".

Strictly speaking however, the words should be left literal, because
they acquired their idiomatic meaning through extensive usage
for the next 400 years, and not at the time of Jesus.

Extensive examples in classical literature (usually before Jesus' era)
are given in the text.

Smyth is largely a descriptive not a prognosive text,
so he is strictly talking to other grammarians and language experts,
not laymen.

But you can learn a lot from such a work, as it brings vast resources
from early writings to bear on the topics.

Reading Smyth is largely an exercise in self-discipline and
one in which you will have to make your own extensive notes,
including unanswered questions as you go through the text.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Thanks for naming your source here.

I don't rely upon 'lonestar' translations, even popular teachers like
Jay Green.

I asked you what are your credentials in the Greek language. From what you said you have no credentials that compares with recognized Greek experts like Jay Green.

But yet you seem to think that you know more about the Greek language than he does.

You have now (deliberately?) left off the complete Conditional sentence,
by dropping the final clause entirely.

I would ask you to be fair to readers here.

No matter what is said in the final clause the verse is saying that the Lord Jesus did not know the day or the hour:

"But of that day and that hour knows no man, no, not the angels who are in heaven, neither the Son..."​

What you put in the final clause does not change with is said previously, that no man knows the day or the hour and neither does the Son.

 

[Nazaroo]

I asked you what are your credentials in the Greek language. From what you said you have no credentials that compares with recognized Greek experts like Jay Green.

But yet you seem to think that you know more about the Greek language than he does.

I have withheld all my credentials to prevent identification for security purposes,
which is a legal requirement in my profession and employment environment.
I am also under many confidentiality and secrecy agreements.

I have no interest in comparing relative knowledge with other scholars,
or Bible teachers like Jay Green.
Such comparisons are futile, since no one can objectively measure
relative knowledge, which may be extensive but private.
IQ tests are the closest thing to an objective measure of both
intelligence and knowledge/experience, but while accurate in their results,
the meaning of the IQ ratings are disputed.

On the other hand, if Jay Green doesn't understand conditional sentences,
then I suppose he shouldn't teach Greek, or even English.

No matter what is said in the final clause the verse is saying that the Lord Jesus did not know the day or the hour:

"But of that day and that hour knows no man, no, not the angels who are in heaven, neither the Son..."​

What you put in the final clause does not change w[hat] is said previously,
that no man knows the day or the hour and neither does the Son.

This claim of yours amounts to a denial of the existence of
the Conditional Sentence, which is, I assure you, a real entity.

Let me list a few conditional sentences found in the Holy Scriptures:

"Lord: If he sleeps, (then) he does well." (John 11:12)
" κυριε, ει κεκοιμηται, σωθησεται. " (John 11:12 Greek text)

Here the disciple does not make a flat unconditional claim
that Lazarus is doing well.
He only suggests that "IF" circumstance A is true,
THEN result B will also be true.

It would be wrong to insist that
the disciple claimed Lazarus was doing well.
Even if he believes this to be true, he is not here claiming he knows
it to be so unconditionally, but rather he supposes that if a given
condition is met, then the statement will be true.

Whenever the word "if" (Greek "ei") appears, we have to
recognize its meaning and function, which is to introduce
and coordinate hypothetical ideas, for purposes of imparting
complex knowledge.

"In my Father's house are many homes.
But if not, (that is, "if there were not many homes there," )
(then) I would have told you." (John 14:2)

" εν τη οικια του Πατρος μου μοναι πολλαι εισιν.
ει δε μη [elipsis of counter-assertion],
ειπον αν υμιν!"

We use this conditional structure all the time in English,
so much so, that we don't even notice the hidden clause
which is unstated, by means of ellipsis.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I have no interest in comparing relative knowledge with other scholars, or Bible teachers like Jay Green.
Such comparisons are futile, since no one can objectively measure
relative knowledge, which may be extensive but private.
IQ tests are the closest thing to an objective measure of both
intelligence and knowledge/experience, but while accurate in their results, the meaning of the IQ ratings are disputed.

For the life of me I cannot understand what this revised verse of yours is saying:

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

Can you give a simple explanation as to what is being said in this translation?

Thanks!

 

[Sonnet]

Jerry, you need to make up your mind

:juggle:

In the following you claim "generation" means "race"



Next, you claim "this" refers to "you"



Next, you claim it refers to the people (ye)



Are you sure you don't want to include STP's explanation where he claims "all these things" doesn't really mean "all these things"?

Or maybe musterions explanation where he claims there's a secret Greek word hidden in the verse?

Or maybe Danoh's explanation where he claims there is a subjunctive mood in the verse?

Or maybe the pat Dispie explanation where they claim "this" really means "that"

I've seen them all Jerry. No matter how hard you guys try, the verse means what it says.

The demonstrative adjective "this" modifies the noun "generation". When proper grammar is applied "this generation" can only describe the generation of Jesus' contemporaries.

So the 'great distress' of AD 70, when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, has no parallel before or after?

Mat. 24:21
For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.

 

[Sonnet]

So, are you saying that Jesus' point was that the Jews would not pass away before the things spoken of concerning the Jews would happen to them?

If so, I can't think of a more meaningless statement.

That's like telling your friend "God told me that such and such is going to happen to you." "When is it going to happen to you?" "It will happen to you before you die."

If God says it is going to happen to the guy, it is obviously going to happen before he dies.

If God says the Jews would go through a great tribulation, it would obviously occur before that "family" passes away. There would be no reason to make the statement.

I agree

For this reason and others, I side with the preterist on this verse.

Then what of Dan Emanuel's point:

Preterism doesn't work because the majority report from the historical record indicate's plainly that the Church did not interpret the event's of A.D. 70 in the way in which Preterist's explain. Its intractable. Its a fatal flaw that require's a story about a cover-up that rival's that of the X-File's Special Agent Fox Mulder. That secretly, Jesus told the Church to hush about His 2nd Coming already happening, and here we are today set to raise the curtain on this above-top Church secret? Are we supposed to tell the world that He already came? How can we do that when people see that we all still bleed? The 2nd Coming is the end of death.

 

[Sonnet]

Why meaningless?

The Lord wanted to assure them that the nation would not be destroyed during the great tribulation or during the world wide harvest which would follow. In fact, this is not the first time that such assurance had been given to the Israelites, as witnessed by these words:

"Thus says the LORD, Who gives the sun for light by day And the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar; The LORD of hosts is His name: If this fixed order departs From before Me, declares the LORD, Then the offspring of Israel also will cease from being a nation before Me forever" (Jer.31:35-36).​

According to the Lord as long as the sun and moon remain in the sky the nation of Israel will remain "being a nation" before Him. So there is nothing odd about the Lord Jesus telling the Israelites that "this race shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled," especially with the great tribulation in view.

How does this answer Aaron the Tall's point that such an interpretations renders Jesus' words as meaningless?

 

[Sonnet]

You and Jerry should have a contest for which one of you can butcher Matt 24:34 more than the other.

Read the whole chapter.

Jesus told of many events that had to take place before He returned.

Those were the conditions.

All the events that Jesus said had to happen (the conditions) before He returned did in fact happen before 70AD.

Thus, there were still some people still alive from the generation of Jesus' contemporaries before He returned.

Then what of Dan Emanuel's point:

Preterism doesn't work because the majority report from the historical record indicate's plainly that the Church did not interpret the event's of A.D. 70 in the way in which Preterist's explain. Its intractable. Its a fatal flaw that require's a story about a cover-up that rival's that of the X-File's Special Agent Fox Mulder. That secretly, Jesus told the Church to hush about His 2nd Coming already happening, and here we are today set to raise the curtain on this above-top Church secret? Are we supposed to tell the world that He already came? How can we do that when people see that we all still bleed? The 2nd Coming is the end of death.

 

[Nazaroo]

For the life of me I cannot understand what this revised verse of yours is saying:

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

Can you give a simple explanation as to what is being said in this translation?

Thanks!

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.

The first step in unpacking this saying is to expand it legitimately,
by replacing any Ellipsis in the sentence.

"No one knows the day and the hour;
not even the angels in heaven know the day and the hour,
not even the Son (knows the day and the hour),
if the Father (Himself) doesn't know the day and the hour."

The first three clauses,
if they were separately expressed as independent flat statements,
would have carried the modern meaning normally attributed to them
by translators.

That is, any or all three of these clauses, had they been said by Jesus
on separate occasions, would have suggested either historical truths,
or statements about the current state of knowledge of those mentioned.

Thus, if we had found in some section of the Gospels,

"The angels don't know the day and the hour (of the Last Day, Judgement, or Return)."

... we would be justified in believing that the angels don't know this,
and if expressed as a universal truth meant to apply until the 2nd coming,
we could even strongly believe that the angels even now do not know.


And if Jesus had said, on another independent occasion,

"Even The Son (of Man) does not know the day or hour."

... perhaps on some occasion when the disciples had asked,
"When is the army of God Coming?"
We could reasonably understand that Jesus had simply said "I don't know."
in a poetic way, or perhaps a way that prevented others
(who didn't know He referred to himself with this title)
from picking up that admission.

Even then, we would be extending the meaning beyond the text,
if we were to assume that Jesus remained in the dark regarding the date,
after being resurrected and ascending to His throne in Heaven
at God's right hand.
It would still be a reasonable assumption in some people's view,
for instance if the time had not been yet decided,
or if Jesus had not bothered to ask the Father when.

Probably the most universal expression we might have liked to find,
would be an independent statement by Jesus somewhere like this:

"No one knows the Day and the Hour
when the army of the Lord is coming."

In this case, the all but universal flat statement would
naturally be assumed to include both angels and the Son of Man (Jesus).
And such an UNQUALIFIED and UNLIMITED universal
would justify a belief that Jesus taught that this particular information
(the time of the event) is an UNKNOWABLE thing.

The problem is, Jesus never did make any such flat unconditional statements.


And other things that Jesus said now have to be taken into account and used
to form our view of what Jesus meant in the real passage at hand.

I think that if we really try to understand the Conditional Sentence,
we will come away with a good idea of what Jesus is saying in Mark 13:34.

Let's try first to see what the Conditional Sentence does for us
in another passage, which everyone already understands,
and in which everyone agrees to its basic meaning:

"In my Father's house are many homes.
But if not, (that is, "if there were not many homes there," )
(then) I would have told you." (John 14:2)

" εν τη οικια του Πατρος μου μοναι πολλαι εισιν.
ει δε μη [elipsis of counter-assertion],
ειπον αν υμιν!"

First, lets note that UNLIKE Mark 13:32, this Conditional
is preceded by a flat UNconditional statement that helps us to get it.

There are in fact two statements here:

(1) "In My Father's house there are many homes." (statement 1).

This is a flat historical truth, making it absolutely clear what Jesus
wants us to understand, believe, and take away from the talk.

(2) "But if not, I would have told you!" (statement 2).

This is a perfectly understandable expression, but we don't normally
unpack it to its fullest extent, because we easily understand the shorthand.

This 'shorthand', developed through Ellipsis, which is a natural way
people have of getting quickly to the point, is not usually ambiguous.
the CONTEXT (the previous statement) provides the meaning.

Using the previous statement, we can make this second sentence
more of a 'stand-alone' and complete statement, that gives the meaning,
even without the previous first statement:

"But if [in My Father's House there are] NOT [many homes],
I would have told you [that there were not many homes there]."

Now the second statement is clear without needing the first one.


Suppose we apply this same fuller structure to the Conditional Statement
in Mark 13:32:

First we need a flat unconditional statement (1) which tells us the facts.

(1) "There IS someone who knows the Day and the Hour of the Return." or,
"The Father knows the Day and the Hour of the Return."

Now we add the Conditional Sentence,
which tells us under what conditions the OPPOSITE case would require,
just like the example from the Gospel of John:

(2) "If the Father doesn't know,
then not even the angels would know,
and not even the Son of Man knows."

What is this second statement saying?
It does not contradict the first statement,
because it does not assert a flat unconditional truth about
a historical situation or a current condition.

Instead, it tells us that ANOTHER sign or condition would exist,
in the case where statement 1 failed.

Jesus here would be asserting that
it is impossible for Angels or even 'the Son of Man' to know something
that the Father himself does not know.

Why would Jesus say this?
It seems almost a trivial claim, but it is actually a very forceful claim:

Jesus is reminding the crowd that they are already witnessing
a Revelation by Himself (the Son of Man) from God the Father,
accompanied by Signs and miracles.

Therefore they can be confident and certain that what Jesus reveals
about the future is reliable and true, because its from the Father.

Jesus is reminding them that all His own knowledge and power
is being SOURCED by the Father.

In the real context of Jesus revealing new truths to people in darkness,
accompanied by unheard of power and merciful blessings and healings,
they can be assured that all this 'shock and awe' is from THE FATHER.

 

[Aaron the Tall]

Of course you failed to even attempt to prove anything which I said about the throne of David is in error. This is the throne upon which He will sit:

"He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David" (Lk.1:32).​

From the very beginning the throne of David was earthly in nature, as witnessed by the following words:

"Then sat Solomon upon the throne of David his father; and his kingdom was established greatly" (1 Ki. 2:12).​

Solomon sat upon the throne of David on the earth. Now let us look at the Lord's promises made to David in regard to that throne and kingdom:

"I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever...thy throne shall be established for ever" (2 Sam.7:12-13).​

Since the throne was "earthly" in nature then we can know that God established the earthly throne FOR EVER. God also said that He would not "alter" the promises which He made to David:

"I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant...Nevertheless my loving-kindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David" (Ps.89:3,33-35).​

You say that God did "alter" His promise to David because the "throne of David" was changed from an earthly throne into a heavenly one.

According to you God did lie when He promised David that He would not "alter" his promises.

And then you do not even have the gumption to even attempt to address these particular points which I made about this.

I would like to reply to your points - but I don't always have the time to do a thorough job.

My one question for now is: if God' promised to establish David's earthly throne forever, where is that throne now??