Each Eschatological view.

[robycop3]

Jesus used "prophetic hyperbole" in Matthew 24:29. You find similar phrases in Ezekiel 5:9, Isaiah 13:9-10, etc. Heavenly bodies often symbolize earthly rulers and governments. Obviously the events of AD 70 fulfilled these local events.

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.

I am assuming the "tribes of the earth" quote is from Revelation 1:7.

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

This is actually one of passages I use to prove that Revelation was written before Jerusalem's destruction (probably 66-68 AD). The "tribes" refers to the Jews, and "the earth" to Judah.

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

As I mentioned earlier, the "powers of the heavens" is symbolic language for earthly rulers.

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

The Beast was not just Nero, but also Rome. As such, the Beast was very present in Jerusalem.

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

Just as the seal of the 144,000 was not a physical mark,

Howdya know? Hasn't happened yet.

neither was the mark of the beast.

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

Did they literally have names written on their foreheads? Of course not. In Revelation 13:16-17, only those Jews who aligned with the Old Covenant system were "marked" for access into the Temple.

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

You are correct in that those prophecies MUST be fulfilled to the letter with no exceptions. You are absolutely correct regarding Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who was only a foreshadow of the AOD. This is precisely what happened. This is why "let the reader understand" is included in the Olivet Discourse. The reader of the prophecy (Daniel 9:27) is to understand what is happening before his eyes. Gabriel told Daniel that "He (Christ) will make a firm covenant with many" which would be broken "in the middle of the week" (when He was crucified). The "one who makes desolate" is the same as the "Man of Sin" in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 - Nero. Nero didn't need to physically be there, as they set up emperor worship.

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.

I will admit that I don't understand some of the imagery in Revelation 13, but I will take a stab at it. The beast coming up out of the earth (v. 11) is the False Prophet, who I believe was Apostate Israel. The "fire from Heaven" was most likely firebrands that the Roman army used to attack Jerusalem. The "image of the Beast" probably refers to Vespasian's image that was displayed by the Romans. The Beast (Rome) was "killed" by Nero's suicide, and "came back to life" under Vespasian's rule.

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

Yes, the Scriptures are very plain, and symbolism is easily recognized as such. It is for that very reason I wonder why you don't see the symbolism that is in the Olivet Discourse. Beyond that, I really don't get how you could see most of Revelation as literal.

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 Partial Preterist view regarding the Great Tribulation is that is was a local event. Jesus "returned" in judgment on Israel in AD 70, but His actual 2nd Coming is still in our future. (At least we can agree upon that last part).

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.

 

[robycop3]

Sorry about that, Brother. I don't always make myself clear. In my view, the Great Tribulation was the Jewish Wars (AD 66-70). In Matthew 24:27, Jesus said His coming will be just as lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west. Historically, the Roman armies advanced from east to west. Verse 28 speaks of massive slaughter, which happened when the Roman armies invaded Jerusalem in AD 70. Verse 29 quotes Isaiah 13:10, which was symbolic language used to describe judgment against Babylon. These 1st Century Jews were familiar with this apocalyptic language, they would not take what was meant as symbolic as literal. This would be like expecting felines and canines to fall from the sky if someone told us it's raining cats and dogs.
Then we come to Matthew 24:30, where the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the heavens. A sign is different from the object is points to. "All the tribes of the earth will mourn" points to Israel mourning over their judgment.

The use of "this generation" always means the generation He is speaking to. It never means some future generation. He tells His 1st Century audience "when you (not they) see all these things...". This included the "coming of the Son of Man". This does not necessarily mean the literal coming of Christ, but a "coming" in judgment. We find apocalyptic language used many times when God "came" in judgment (Isaiah 13:10-13, 34:3-5; Ezekiel 32:2, 7-8; Joel 3:15-16, etc.). The "nor ever shall happen again" language is hyperbole. We see it in Ezekiel 5:8-9. In 2 Kings 21:8, God says that He will never again make Israel wander from the land He gave their ancestors. Yet, the 10 northern tribes were taken captive, never to return. It's all contextual.

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

 

[37818]

The use of "this generation" always means the generation He is spe aking to.

That is not my understanding. Perchance do you even know how and why I understand "this generation" differently? And so why I actually think the interpertation you hold is not true?
Did Jesus only teach Nicodemus, that he alone must be born again in John 3:7?

 

[Lodic]

No. Isaiah 13:9-10, Matthew 24:29-31 has not yet happened.

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.

 

[Lodic]

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

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.

 

[Lodic]

That is not my understanding. Perchance do you even know how and why I understand "this generation" differently? And so why I actually think the interpertation you hold is not true?
Did Jesus only teach Nicodemus, that he alone must be born again in John 3:7?

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.

 

[37818]

@Lodic,
That one event found in Isaiah 13:10 and ten other places in Scripture, like Revelation 6:12-17. The 12th time will be the actual event. So I am convinced. Ezekiel and Joel, Matthew, Mark, Luke and Acts refer to it.

 

[Lodic]

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.

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.

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

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

Howdya know? Hasn't happened yet. But it'll be physical.

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.

 

[37818]

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.

No the interpertation you are using is changing His usage of the plural "you." Do you really think John the Baptist meant Jesus was only going to baptize in the Holy Spirit only those John spoke to? Matthew 3:11.

 

[Lodic]

@Lodic,
That one event found in Isaiah 13:10 and ten other places in Scripture, like Revelation 6:12-17. The 12th time will be the actual event. So I am convinced. Ezekiel and Joel, Matthew, Mark, Luke and Acts refer to it.

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!

 

[Lodic]

No the interpertation you are using is changing His usage of the plural "you." Do you really think John the Baptist meant Jesus was only going to baptize in the Holy Spirit only those John spoke to? Matthew 3:11.

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.

 

[37818]

@Lodic,
All I am asking at this point is for you to see how we are understand what Jesus said on Matthew 24:33-34 differently.

 

[Lodic]

@Lodic,
All I am asking at this point is for you to see how we are understand what Jesus said on Matthew 24:33-34 differently.

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.

 

[37818]

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.

Well, I understand the plural "you" in Matthew 3:11, John 3:7 and Matthew 24:33 to refer to more than the immediate audiences. And that one event in Matthew 24:29, Revelation 6;12 as yet future.

 

[37818]

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.

What was the first thing that made it necessary for you to change your mind? [I am post trib, pre wrath, BTW]

 

[37818]

Will you consider whether He might possibly have meant His present 1st Century audience?

My understanding that it was not, goes back to, what, 1969 or so. I didn't learn about orthodox Preterism till about 2012 or so.

 

[37818]

My understanding that it was not, goes back to, what, 1969 or so. I didn't learn about orthodox Preterism till about 2012 or so.

I had always understood the solely the immediate audience interpertation as unnecessary. Re: Matthew 3:11 and John 3:7.

 

[37818]

@Lodic,
2 Corinthians 15:52, ". . . In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. . . ."
The immediate audience argument requires Christ's return in the Apostle Paul:s life time.

 

[Lodic]

What was the first thing that made it necessary for you to change your mind? [I am post trib, pre wrath, BTW]

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?

 

[Lodic]

I had always understood the solely the immediate audience interpertation as unnecessary. Re: Matthew 3:11 and John 3:7.

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.