Each Eschatological view.

[Lodic]

@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.

Actually, I believe this passage is about our resurrected bodies. I think the audience relevance depends a lot on the overall context. On another note, I believe Christ did "return" in judgment of Jerusalem in AD 70.

 

[37818]

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

The pre trib view held the wrath of God was the tribulation. 1 Thessalonians 1:10, "And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come."
Now with the understanding that appearing of Christ happens after the tribulation, Matthew 24:29-31 and God's wrath after that event, Revelation 6:12-17. It all comes together. Everything fits. By lining up the common events. Only one the last trumpet. Only one first resurrection. Only one second appearing of Christ.

 

[37818]

@Lodic,
I am of the persuasion that Matthew 24:1-2 is Jesus prophecy which was fulfilled in 70AD. And a fulfilment of Daniel 9:26. What the Disciples asked Jesus, He only answers about His second appearing. Nothing more about what He had said in Matthew 24:1-2. This being my firm understanding.

 

[37818]

@Lodic,
One item I didn't mention. Has to do with the only one second apprearing. That as the man Jesus, as He died for our sins once for all, He entered Heaven once for all, Hebrews 9:12, to be mediator, Hebrews 9:24, until He comes in His second appearing, Hebrews 9:28, when we will be like Him, 1John 3:2 and from then on be with Him, 1 Thessalonians 4:17.

 

[robycop3]

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?

 

[robycop3]

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.

It's simple-THE PROPHESIED EVENTS DIDN'T OCCUR IN THAT GENERATION !

 

[Lodic]

@Lodic,
One item I didn't mention. Has to do with the only one second apprearing. That as the man Jesus, as He died for our sins once for all, He entered Heaven once for all, Hebrews 9:12, to be mediator, Hebrews 9:24, until He comes in His second appearing, Hebrews 9:28, when we will be like Him, 1John 3:2 and from then on be with Him, 1 Thessalonians 4:17.

We are in agreement there. Although He "came in judgment" in AD 70, Jesus didn't literally come to Jerusalem.

 

[Lodic]

It's simple-THE PROPHESIED EVENTS DIDN'T OCCUR IN THAT GENERATION !

That doesn't explain why Jesus said "this generation" if He really meant "that generation". The simple truth is that those events did come to pass in that generation. As Forrest Gump would say, "that's all I got to say about that".

 

[37818]

We are in agreement there. Although He "came in judgment" in AD 70, Jesus didn't literally come to Jerusalem.

Bear in mind, I am looking at, Acts 1:11, ". . . this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. . . ." When Matthew 24:30, ". . . then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds . . . ." And not as any kind of hyperbola.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I personally have zero basis to interpet the millennium symbolically. Re: Revelation 20:4-6. For me a yet future literal millennium is as fundamental as Acts 1:11. [Now water immersion and the remembrance are symbolic.] Now my personal eschelogical view is per-millennial post-triblational pre-wrath rapture.

@Lodic,
Please step me through how you came to your symbolic millennium view.

Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; and he threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time.[Revelation 20:1-3]


So, we see a lot of figurative language used. Satan depicted as a dragon. Is he literally a dragon? No, of course not. Was he literally wrapped in chains. No. So why take the 1,000 years literal?


How about this verse?


Know therefore that the Lord your God, He is God, the faithful God, who keeps His covenant and His lovingkindness to a thousandth generation with those who love Him and keep His commandments;[Deuteronomy 7:9]

Is God faithful to a literal 1,000th generation? He could be, and if He is, then the world will be anywhere from 25,000 to 40,000 years old, seeing that a biblical generation was somewhere between 25 and 40 years. I’ve heard both so I don’t know which one is correct, but I think 40 to be the correct one, seeing Israel was in the wilderness for 40 years after leaving Egypt and entering into the Promised Land.

 

[SovereignGrace]

The pre trib view held the wrath of God was the tribulation. 1 Thessalonians 1:10, "And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come."
Now with the understanding that appearing of Christ happens after the tribulation, Matthew 24:29-31 and God's wrath after that event, Revelation 6:12-17. It all comes together. Everything fits. By lining up the common events. Only one the last trumpet. Only one first resurrection. Only one second appearing of Christ.

Matthew 24:29-31 happened in AD 70. Nowhere in the Olivet Discourse does it not refer to “this generation”. Just as Jesus said “who do I compare this generation to?” He was not talking about a future generation there, either, but that generation at that time.

 

[37818]

Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; and he threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time.[Revelation 20:1-3]


So, we see a lot of figurative language used. Satan depicted as a dragon. Is he literally a dragon? No, of course not. Was he literally wrapped in chains. No. So why take the 1,000 years literal?


How about this verse?


Know therefore that the Lord your God, He is God, the faithful God, who keeps His covenant and His lovingkindness to a thousandth generation with those who love Him and keep His commandments;[Deuteronomy 7:9]

Is God faithful to a literal 1,000th generation? He could be, and if He is, then the world will be anywhere from 25,000 to 40,000 years old, seeing that a biblical generation was somewhere between 25 and 40 years. I’ve heard both so I don’t know which one is correct, but I think 40 to be the correct one, seeing Israel was in the wilderness for 40 years after leaving Egypt and entering into the Promised Land.

Even even if one understands the number as a figure of speech, ". . . Satan . . . that he should deceive the nations no more, . . ." Has never yet happened. To claim some hyperbola language is to throw 1 John 3:8 into the trash along with all of Christianity with it.

 

[1689Dave]

Another huge problem for Premillennialists is flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom. So when Satan is loosed at the end of the 1000 years, he has only glorified saints to rally as Gog and Magog against the rest of the glorified saints.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Even even if one understands the number as a figure of speech, ". . . Satan . . . that he should deceive the nations no more, . . ." Has never yet happened. To claim some hyperbola language is to throw 1 John 3:8 into the trash along with all of Christianity with it.

But that’s not my point. My point is that if 1,000 is literal in regards to years in Revelation 20:1-3, then the 1,000th generation would have to be literal as well. Then God doesn’t own the cattle in the 1,001st + hills, too.

 

[37818]

Matthew 24:29-31 happened in AD 70. Nowhere in the Olivet Discourse does it not refer to “this generation”. Just as Jesus said “who do I compare this generation to?” He was not talking about a future generation there, either, but that generation at that time.

One, I cannot believe Matthew 24:29-31 had yet happened, let alone that is refers to Matthew 24:1-2 as you suppose.
Secondly, what Jesus said in Matthew 11:16 has nothing to do with Matthew 24:34.

 

[robycop3]

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 evidence is obvious-THE EVENTS HAVEN'T HAPPENED YET.

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.

Nupe! Israel is not "all the tribes of the earth", just a small part of them.

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

Your digging hit a boulder called "the preterist myth".

I know it wasn't physical because it's already happened.

PROOF, please?

How do you know it will be physical? It's just guesswork.

Because it'll be received on the right hand or forehead.

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.

Your "proof" is ethereal, The BIGGEST proofs I have is that the earth is still going right on as it did in 65 AD, & 71 AD. And, the fact that if the trib has already occurred, Jesus is WAY overdue! You know what He said in Matt. 24, and He has NOT yet fulfilled His prophecy of His own return, IN GREAT POWER & GLORY, SEEN BY ALL, EVEN THOSE WHO PIERCED HIM! If He'd come & been seen by all, the Chinese, Japanese, Scythians, Germans, Gauls, Celts, Picts, etc. woulda mentioned it. And he said NOTHING about TWO returns.

I suggest you toss the trash you've been reading from Preston, Gentry, etc. & stick to what GOD had men write, and to works of history. Those pret authors are like Hal Lindsey-just out to make a buck.

 

[37818]

But that’s not my point. My point is that if 1,000 is literal in regards to years in Revelation 20:1-3, then the 1,000th generation would have to be literal as well. Then God doesn’t own the cattle in the 1,001st + hills, too.

In regards to Revelation 20:2-7 I believe you are in error here. Apples and oranges.

 

[SovereignGrace]

In regards to Revelation 20:2-7 I believe you are in error here. Apples and oranges.

How is 1,000 a literal 1,000 in one place but not a 1,000 in another place?

 

[robycop3]

We are in agreement there. Although He "came in judgment" in AD 70, Jesus didn't literally come to Jerusalem.

He didn't come at all then, except Spiritually, where two or more were gathered in His name, as He said, & as He does today.

That doesn't explain why Jesus said "this generation" if He really meant "that generation". The simple truth is that those events did come to pass in that generation. As Forrest Gump would say, "that's all I got to say about that".

No, they didn't. There's no evidence whatsoever saying they did.

 

[SovereignGrace]

One, I cannot believe Matthew 24:29-31 had yet happened, let alone that is refers to Matthew 24:1-2 as you suppose.
Secondly, what Jesus said in Matthew 11:16 has nothing to do with Matthew 24:34.

You will not find Jesus changing course in that sermon. Even after vss 29-31, He said ”Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.”[Matthew 24:34]

Look at Ezekiel 5. I read that last evening, btw. Ezekiel shaves his beard and divides it. He then shows Jerusalem’s impending desolation by using that divided beard. It was to happen soon, not millennia later.

Fast forward to Matthew 24 and the Olivet Discourse. He is telling them, “this generation” not a “this generation” millennia later, of their impending doom, which happened in AD 70. It would be fruitless to tell them of a doom happening millennia later. It would be like God showing me your place where you live at(He doesn’t do this, but I’m proving my point here) and that 3,000 years later it’s nuked. I then warn you of that happening. Why warn about this when you’ll be long gone? Same with the Olivet Discourse. He was telling them, “this generation” about the impending doom to occur in AD 70.