If it doesn't mean its wrong, then why bring it up?
Because it shows that Sproul, who is vastly more intelligent and well argued than you and I put together are, is vastly more humble. He acknowledges that there is debate and the view he holds is not the one that most Christians hold.
I would like to see the evidence that most scholars throughout Church History believed the Olivet Discourse did not refer to AD70.
Start reading.
So since you are not dogmatic about your position then I assume you think there is a decent chance you are wrong.
I think there is a chance, sure. I don’t know enough to be that dogmatic on it. Surely you admit there is a chance you are wrong, don’t you?
As I explained earlier and you choose to ignore is the reason I ask questions is to prove the contradictions within your system.
That’s silly and disingenuous. If you know what my position is, state and refute it. You haven’t done either.
Yet you just said they have been debated for centuries.
The issues have been. The type of arguments you are making are not the typical type of arguments used to debate. Usually the debate is carried on which much more grace and civility, tighter logic, and less “gotcha.”
Well lets see here is your first post, this is what you said aout those who believe the time statements of the NT refer to a specific time frame:
The Bible calls people who believe that "mockers who come with their mocking"
and again later.......
But some thought that that meant within a short span of time. God calls people who think that "near" means a short span of time mockers.
The point was that those who place time constraints on the return of Jesus are called mockers. That’s what God said. I didn’t say that. Remember one of the main contentions is that "the language of nearness means that Jesus had to come soon." Sproul makes the point that this is about the credibility of Scripture and Jesus. The mockers in 2 Peter said, "Where is the promise of his coming because all things continue just as they have ...?" They too thought the "language of nearness" required a soon coming, and God said they were mockers. Now, obviously they were skeptics and unbelievers. I do not accuse you or Sproul of being that. But I think there are some things worthy of thought there.
Then the arrogant condescending remarks began: Perhaps you don't know what the words mean.
That was neither arrogant nor condescending. It is common, in biblical/theological discussions, for people not to know the meaning of Greek or Hebrew words. They simply work in English and don’t recognize the nuances of other languages. I suggested that perhaps you don’t know what the words mean. I am not convinced I was wrong.
"Not many believe it", that is what you said. Anyone can read the commentaries pre-1900 and see many did in fact read the Olivet Discourse just as I do.
What’s “many”? I was using “many” in a comparative sense, not an absolute sense. I don’t think most Christians believe what you have stated here. Prove me wrong if you want, but you will have to disagree with Sproul.
Everyone just go read Matthew 10 and see for youself. To read it outside the 1st century is to completely rip it out of its context. Context, something you claim to care about.
Yes, context.
Yet another unlearned man who had not studied the subject otherwise he would agree with you.
I have never made that argument. My argument about study was about having to ask questions (inane questions). I guarantee you that Carson and Sproul don’t need to ask me what I believe about verses. If you read them, and debated like they debate, you would win some people to your spirit. Quite frankly, I am disgusted with the way you have acted in this debate. Carson is a gentleman, as is Sproul. They do not talk like you do.
The persecution was coming from the Jews.
In 1 Thess 2:14, there are two persecutions: Thessalonians persecuted by their compatriots, and Jews persecuted by Jews. Paul makes a comparison that the Thessalonians were being persecuted by their compatriots, just as the Jews were persecuted by the Jews. In Acts 17, the persecution of the Thessalonians was probably not from Jews, but from fellow Thessalonians.
Apparently from your viewpoint the relief Paul promised never made it to the Thessolonians but was "transferred" to some future Church.
If you look historically, many of the Thessalonians did not receive earthly relief. They died, were killed for their faith. The promise of 2 Thessalonians I think is an eschatological promise that will come when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with flaming fire to bring judgment on unbelievers. Whatever one believes about AD70 and prophecy, it was in Jerusalem, not in Thessalonica, and I think you would have a tremendously hard time saying how the Thessalonians who are being persecuted by fellow Thessalonians are relieved by a military campaign hundreds of miles away against a people that weren’t bothering them.
Yet he wrote about the man of sin but not this important Temple he would use.
The temple is the millennial temple. The man of sin is gone before the millennium begins. (Again, I have to wonder if you have studied for thousands of hours, why you would say something like that. It makes no sense that you wouldn’t have understood that distinction.)
What else could they be? Is that how you determine what they are?
That is certainly a part of the exegetical process. You have to ask the question, “What are the various ways in which this passage could be understood?”
Oh, they are for sin offerings. You could not find one passage in that book to even hint they for for a memorial.
Why would you need offerings to take away sin in the millennium when the sin offerings never took away sin and Jesus did? They are certainly related to sin, but they don’t take away sin. They memorialize the death of Jesus.
Yea, I think "this generation" means something.
So do I. Our difference is not that you think it means something and I think it means nothing. Again, that is a disingenuous argument.
It matters not what we in the 21st century America thinks it means, what did the 1st century Hebrew think it meant. Hebrews who knew their OT like the back of their hand.
So to prove what first century Hebrews think something meant, you cited a 7th century Hebrew interpreted by a 19th century American?
Isa 19:1 The burden of Egypt. Behold, the LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence, and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it.
This is typically called a theophany. They are all through the OT, primarily in the psalms and prophets, I think. But you would have to show some relevance to the topic at hand. If your point is that AD 70 was the judgment of God, I agree. But Acts 1 says that Jesus will return just like they saw him go. That is in the clouds, which didn’t happen in AD 70.
Jesus said:
Mat 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
Which generation? You can’t just blow over that. If Matt 24 describes the events of the future, “this generation” is not the generation of Jesus’ disciples (of whom many passed prior to AD 70, which is a rather big whole for you, IMO). “This generation” is the generation who sees “all these things.”
Included in that was the parousia.
Actually, v. 33 does not include the parousia in “all these things.” When “all these things” happen, the parousia ias “right at the door.”
But you admit that the signs were already fulfilled by the time James wrote his words.
I was referring to something different—the resurrection and the beginning of the church. Perhaps I poorly communicated. I don’t recall the exact post and you didn’t link to it here. James was saying that the end could begin at any time. I think that is the consistent position of the NT.
Well an event can't be immenent if there are still things to occur before the immenent event. Therefore if all the signs had been fulfilled and the generation that sees those signs would see the parousia then by your own words you defeat your own argument.
The word is “imminent.” You are trying to separate out things. For the NT author, “the end” spanned a lot of events. They were not always separated out as you are trying to do.
Now do you understand why I asked questions?.
No. I think you are very confused about the issues. I think you have revealed some significant misunderstanding.
I am prepared to show more of your inconsistancies from the questions I posed to you.
Feel free. I don’t think you have shown any yet. I think the only inconsistency is between what I believe and what you have claimed I believe. I think you have shown some inconsistency in exegesis in some places.
I will leave you with one of your statements I do agree with you on:
I am no expert on this topic. There is much that I need to learn.
I think we all fit into this category, don’t you?
