Each Eschatological view.

Typical pret reaction to Scriptures that prove their doctrine false is to reduce those Scriptures to "figurative/symbolic" status. There's not a quark of evidence to support such a reduction of Matt. 24:29, especially as the surrounding verses are quite-literal.

No; it's from Matt. 24:30.

No such proof. "Tribes" refers to various peoples of various nations, and "earth" refers to the planet on which we live.

Better dig a little deeper. It refers to motions in the cosmos as seen from earth.

Nupe; the beast was neither. He hasn't yet come.

Howdya know? Hasn't happened yet.

Hasn't happened yet, either. But it'll be physical.

The marka the beast will almost certainly be some sorta microchip. The world is headed for it now, as it becomes more & more cashless.

Jesus said that because he knew the coming AOD will somewhat imitate the first one-the temple will be entered by an unbeliever, a statue will be set up, & the beast will end the sacrifices, while declaring himself God.

You don't understand it because you're looking at it from a false pret viewpoint. It's all future events.

That's because the Olivet Discourse is literal. The temple & J were destroyed. There's been war, rumors of war, many little antichrists, storefront Jesuses, & false prophets, and also famines, pestilences, & earthquakes. These have all been LITERAL, of course! No reason to believe Jesus switched gears & went from literal to symbolic-SHAZAM!-that quickly!

The PP view is totally wrong. I have 3 sets of encyclopediae in fronta me, as well as many other works of history, and there's not one peep in any of them suggesting that any of the events except those listed above have occurred yet. No disrespect meant, but I can prove my assertions while no pret can prove his/hers.

 

"This generation" is the one that'll see all the events occur.

 

All of Isaiah 13 was an oracle against Babylon. From 729 B.C., Babylon was part of the Assyrian Empire. The ruler of Assyria assumed the title "King of Babylon". Babylon then became the capitol of the Neo-Babylonian empire which Nebuchadnezzar ruled after the death of his father. He first besieged Jerusalem in 605 B.C. He destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 586 B.C. This type of "cosmic language" is common in Scripture. Did the moon literally turn to blood at Pentecost?

Nothing in the context of the Olivet Discourse indicates that Jesus switched from speaking of an event in the near future (v. 2) to events far into the future. It was all fulfilled between AD 66-70.

 

If that were the case, Jesus would have said "that generation". Was He talking about a different generation in Matthew 11:16, Matthew 12:41-45, or Matthew 22:36? Not to mention the other uses of that phrase in the other gospels. You are trying to make a single exception for this, thus, you are changing the meaning.

 

Of all the times Jesus used the phrase "this generation", He clearly meant the generation of people right in front of Him. Yet, you want to change how He used it when it comes to the Olivet Discourse. If Scripture is to interpret Scripture, we must be consistent.

 

You do realize that Jesus is quoting a symbolic passage from the Old Testament, right? That is often your typical reaction, despite the evidence that I produce.

My mistake. The reference to the tribes of the earth in Matthew 24:30 is the same as in Revelation 1:7. It's 1st Century Israel.

By digging a little deeper, I learned this does not refer to the cosmos, but to earthly rulers and kingdoms.

I know it wasn't physical because it's already happened. How do you know it will be physical? It's just guesswork.

I've presented the proof of the Partial Preterist view many times, several within this thread. You don't accept what I have presented as proof, just as I do not accept your views as proof. I make my arguments for the sake of those who care to at least investigate the claims I make, and to show that there is an alternative to the futurist claims that have weak Biblical support.

 

It would seem that each of us are fully convinced, and each bases our views on our study of Scripture. That's okay. Despite our different views on the "End Times", we agree upon the most important things of trusting in Christ alone for forgiveness of sins, our Heavenly future, and the future physical return of Christ. Halleujah!

 

Obviously this applies to all generations of believers. However, the context of the Olivet Discourse makes it just as obvious that He was speaking to their generation, and not to a future generation.

 

Fair enough, although I shared your view of what that passage meant until about 2010. Will you consider whether He might possibly have meant His present 1st Century audience? After all, we really should be sure of our beliefs, and let "iron sharpen iron" through our discussion.

 

As I started to truly study eschatology for the first time (as opposed to just taking someone's word for what everything meant), I learned about audience relevance. What did the author mean to convey to his original audience? How would the original audience have understood the message? Right along with that, I started to pay attention to "time phrases" such as "near", "far", "this generation". It wasn't long before I became very skeptical of the "end times" views that I had been taught.

I've heard of "pre-wrath", but I really don't know what that is? Could you elaborate?

 

I had never considered immediate audience interpretation at all until around 2010. Now I believe audience relevance is one of the main keys to understanding the texts.