"This generation will certainly not pass"

[Grasshopper]

John Brown(1853)
" 'Heaven and earth passing,' understood literally, is the dissolution of the present system of the universe, and the period when that is to take place, is called the 'end of the world.' But a person at all familiar with the phraseology of the Old Testament Scriptures, knows that the dissolution of the Mosaic economy, and the establishment of the Christian, is often spoken of as the removing of the old earth and heavens, and the creation of a new earth and new heavens" (vol. 1, p. 170)

If you can't understand that, then there is nothing more I can say.

 

[Daniel David]

I understand what he is saying, but he is just simply making that up.

You are going to tell me that the no more crying, no more pain and suffering, etc., happend in AD 70?

Hmmm, I wonder why preterism is the running joke among christians.

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

I don't pretend to have answers to a lot of this, but I will add my two cents to say that I am very uncomfortable with the "standard" modern interpretation of Matthew 24 that says that Jesus meant "some future generation" when he looked at those to whom he spoke and said "this generation". It's a stretch, if you ask me.

 

[Glory Bound]

Just reading the title of this thread... "This generation will certainly not pass", I thought how very odd to say this about a future generation! It seems stupid, really. It's like - DUH! - of course whoever is alive "then" to see those things won't pass until they see those things!

There must be something significant about the "shall not pass" wording. It doesn't make sense to speak of a future generation and say "shall not pass". It still seems to me the whole sentence indicates that those events Jesus was speaking of were coming soon.

 

[Daniel David]

Christ is saying that all those events will take place within the generation.

In other words, the generation that sees the beginning, will also see the end.

PJ, I would be uncomfortable if that is what was meant also. It isn't though. Christ wasn't leave it up in the air. He made very specific statements about events that would happen. When those events happen, know that it will all take place in the same generation, and know that the end is about to come.

The end hasn't come yet.

 

[Grasshopper]

I understand what he is saying, but he is just simply making that up.

I've seen a lot of absurd reasoning on this board, but this is the most idiotic I have come across. CH Spurgeon, John Owen, Sir Isaac Newton, etc.. just "made it up". Unbelievable.

You are going to tell me that the no more crying, no more pain and suffering, etc., happend in AD 70?

Before I explain I need to know if you consider this passage in Is. to also refer to the "New Heaven and Earth" of Revelation.


Is. 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; and the former things shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

Hmmm, I wonder why preterism is the running joke among christians.

Whenever you cannot deal with issues using scripture, you start to name-calling and insults. Perhaps you should start here http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/forum/22.html? and return when you have matured.

 

[Daniel David]

1. As far as believers are concerned, the Old Covenant was done away with at the cross, not 40 years later. Just because rebellious jews ignored God's plan, doesn't mean it was still valid for believers.

Strike one.

2. Let me insert more context here for you:

Isaiah 65:18-20

18 "But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create; For behold, I create Jerusalem for rejoicing And her people for gladness.
19 "I will also rejoice in Jerusalem and be glad in My people; And there will no longer be heard in her The voice of weeping and the sound of crying.
20 " No longer will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days , Or an old man who does not live out his days; For the youth will die at the age of one hundred And the one who does not reach the age of one hundred Will be thought accursed.

Hmmmmm, infants no longer die young, old people will live out their natural lives, those who die younger than 100 are thought to be cursed, etc. Explain the twist, errrrgggggg, spiritualized interpretation of that and let us all know the 'deeper meaning' please.

Strike two.

3. I appreciate your concern. I would much rather you deal with the issues in a manner that is believable. If I want a comic book...

 

[Grasshopper]

1. As far as believers are concerned, the Old Covenant was done away with at the cross, not 40 years later. Just because rebellious jews ignored God's plan, doesn't mean it was still valid for believers.

Hebrews 8:13

2. Let me insert more context here for you:

Isaiah 65:18-20

18 "But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create; For behold, I create Jerusalem for rejoicing And her people for gladness.
19 "I will also rejoice in Jerusalem and be glad in My people; And there will no longer be heard in her The voice of weeping and the sound of crying.
20 " No longer will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days , Or an old man who does not live out his days; For the youth will die at the age of one hundred And the one who does not reach the age of one hundred Will be thought accursed.

Hmmmmm, infants no longer die young, old people will live out their natural lives, those who die younger than 100 are thought to be cursed, etc. Explain the twist, errrrgggggg, spiritualized interpretation of that and let us all know the 'deeper meaning' please.

It is a simple question, does Is. 65 refer to the same Heaven and Earth in Revelation? Yes or no?

 

[Daniel David]

1. So you believe God still honored the Law even after the cross? That is a new one.

2. No. Consider the context of each. Similarity doesn't equal sameness, GH. Now, I also asked many simple questions. How long will you avoid them?

 

[Grasshopper]

1. So you believe God still honored the Law even after the cross? That is a new one.

I believe what the writer of Hebrews wrote. Apparently you do not.

No. Consider the context of each. Similarity doesn't equal sameness, GH. Now, I also asked many simple questions. How long will you avoid them?

One more, What does the New Heaven and New Earth in Is. refer too? Is it to be taken literally as you say the Rev. verses are to be?

 

[Daniel David]

1. I believe what God said also. That isn't the issue. Do you believe God still honored the law even after the death of Christ?

2. As far as I know, all premillenialists believe that the conditions of the millenial kingdom will return to an Eden-like atmosphere. This view is coupled with texts from Ezekiel. I believe this because death is still present among these people, as Isaiah said.

Now will you answer my questions?

 

[Grasshopper]

1. I believe what God said also. That isn't the issue. Do you believe God still honored the law even after the death of Christ?

Good, you now believe the Old covenant had not disappeared. So when did it draw to a close?

No, I believe the power and effectiveness of the Old covenant were gone, however I do believe many Christians during the 40 year transition period did still observe many parts of the Old Cov. possibly even Paul.

2. As far as I know, all premillenialists believe that the conditions of the millenial kingdom will return to an Eden-like atmosphere. This view is coupled with texts from Ezekiel. I believe this because death is still present among these people, as Isaiah said.

Are you equating the Mill. Reign with Is. 65? If so then you do not believe the New Heavens and New Earth of Is. 65 to be literal. Yet when Spurgeon says the same thing, you say he "made it up". I believe you have talked yourself into a corner. One more time, Is. 65 Literal or Metaphoric "New heavens and New Earth"?

Which questions have I not answered?

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by Grasshopper:
1.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />2. As far as I know, all premillenialists believe that the conditions of the millenial kingdom will return to an Eden-like atmosphere. This view is coupled with texts from Ezekiel. I believe this because death is still present among these people, as Isaiah said.

Are you equating the Mill. Reign with Is. 65? If so then you do not believe the New Heavens and New Earth of Is. 65 to be literal. Yet when Spurgeon says the same thing, you say he "made it up". I believe you have talked yourself into a corner. One more time, Is. 65 Literal or Metaphoric "New heavens and New Earth"?

Which questions have I not answered? </font>[/QUOTE]1. The Old Covenant was done away with BY GOD at the cross. That is why he split the veil. He was through with that old system.

What remained were rebellious jews who insisted on continuing the sacrifices. That would all be done away with when the Romans trashed the city.

God had left that place about 40 years prior to all that though.

2. Paint myself in a corner? I said it is literal. The conditions of the kingdom will be paradise-like. Children will live longer, people won't die young, and only the cursed will die under 100 years.

Please explain your mystical interpretation of that verse that I may be educated in the ways of preterism.

 

[Grasshopper]

2. Paint myself in a corner? I said it is literal. The conditions of the kingdom will be paradise-like. Children will live longer, people won't die young, and only the cursed will die under 100 years.

You believe verse 18 and on is literal, fine. What about the New Heaven and New Earth in verse 17?
Here is what you asked me:

Please though, educate me as to what the new heavens and new earth are.

So I sighted several Scholars including Spurgeon who understood the "New Heavens and New Earth" to be figurative language dealing with the Old Covenant. Here is your response to Spurgeon:

I understand what he is saying, but he is just simply making that up.

So you believe the New Heaven and New Earth of Rev 21 to be literal. God will destroy this Earth and these Heavens and create a new one.
Now you say Is. 65 is also literal, but not the same H and E as Rev 21. So God will once again destroy this Earth and Heavens to create the Mill. Reign. Have I got it straight? Two literal New Heavens and Earths?

Or do you now believe that "Heaven and Earth" in Is 65:17 is figurative language just like Spurgeon and Owen and Brown said? And if it is figurative/metaphoric in Is.65 then why can't the same interpretation be made in Rev 21?

Is 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; and the former things shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create; for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people; and there shall be heard in her no more the voice of weeping and the voice of crying.
20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days; for the child shall die a hundred years old, and the sinner being a hundred years old shall be accursed.
21 And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.
22 They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree shall be the days of my people, and my chosen shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
23 They shall not labor in vain, nor bring forth for calamity; for they are the seed of the blessed of Jehovah, and their offspring with them.
24 And it shall come to pass that, before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear.
25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; and dust shall be the serpent's food. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith Jehovah.

Revelation 21
1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth : for the first heaven and the first earth are passed away; and the sea is no more.
2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven of God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of the throne saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he shall dwell with them, and they shall be his peoples, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God:
4 and he shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death shall be no more; neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain, any more: the first things are passed away.

So which New Heaven and New Earth comes first? Is.65 or Rev.21?


The New Covenant offers the things you look for in some Mill. Reign:

No Death : John 8:51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my word, he shall never see death.

Peace : Phil 4:7 And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall guard your hearts and your thoughts in Christ Jesus.

Eternal Life : I John 5:13 These things have I written unto you, that ye may know that ye have eternal life, even unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God.

Sacrifices : I Pet.2:5 ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

Heb 13:15 Through him then let us offer up a sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of lips which make confession to his name.

The New Heavens and Earth replace the Old Heavens and Earth that God created:

Is 52:16 And I have put my words in thy mouth, and have covered thee in the shadow of my hand, that I may plant the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth, and say unto Zion, Thou art my people.

To try to interpret either Is. 65 or Rev 21 in a literal sense is a mistake. "No more weeping and no more crying" (Is. 65)in a Mill. Reign where there is still sin is absurd. Perhaps the mourning and weeping has do do with the spirit and relationship with God. There is no need for Lamentations in the New Covenant, only the Old.