Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because the apostolic church, and including many of the early church fathers underdstood the Olivet discourse as a past event, consummated in 70 AD when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple of Herod.
RESPONSE:
So you are claiming that these events actually happened in 70 AD?
“But in those days, following that distress,
“‘the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
25 the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’
26 “At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens."
But evidently no body noticed?
Or might this all be fiction that never really happened?
Which explanation is more probable?
I guess Jesus got it wrong, eh?
It's called allegory, poetry, etc.
It was VERY prevalent in the ancient world.
Not in their generation, but the generation of those who "see these things happen". When things start happening, it will end in one generation. If rebirth of Israel is sign (a fig tree) as many believe, then it would be one generation from 1948 or 1967 (retaking of Jerusalem).
Did you see my OP? Jesus is quoted by Mark as saying to the 11.. 'whenYOU see these signs happening.."
Alternate interpretations became required after that generation passed away.
But this treatment of prophesy is no different for other religions whose prophets prophesied something that did not happen.
And then the questions begin... was the prophesy literal or figurative? Did he really mean what he said?
But if you are coming up with alternative interpretations, does this not mean that you are not really judging the prophet based on prophesy but are deciding to follow the prophet regardless of what their prophesy says and whether it's fulfilled?
I'm still trying to figure, after all these years, how Jesus' use of "this generation" (the one in front of me) became "THAT generation?" (a generation thousands of years, and counting, in the future).
In Matthew 10:23, Jesus told his Disciples that they would NOT finish preaching throughout all Israel BEFORE he returns (I have a sneaky feeling that verse was a later addition to encourage new converts with an incentive to go preach amongst hostility). As far as I can tell, ALL of those Disciples are long dead and Jesus NEVER returned as promised.
The futurists realizes they have an embarrassing situation on their hands and that is, Jesus (not surprisingly) NEVER came back in the time (those who put the words on his lips) said he would. As a result, that "second coming" has to be pushed back further and further with each passing generation which requires all kinds of mental gymnastics and liberal stretching of various passages. The Preterist, on the other hand, recognizes the obvious and as a result, claim that Jesus DID come back in the time of the generation he spoke to but to do so, they have to spiritualize lots of passages to make their interpretations work.
And while I don't get into all that eternal torment Vs eternal love debate, I now realize that at the end of the day, that whole debate is what also drives this whole debate. The futurists, with their vivid interpretations of death and destruction preceding and accompanying Jesus' supposed rapturing of the saints and his second coming, relish the idea that he is still to come and all the mess in the world is just proof that he is soon on his way. As a result, it gives them the excuse to run around like crazy chickens caught in a storm screaming that the sky is falling and also believing that those who believe in eternal love are giving us heathens a free pass by not frightening us enough with the threat of doom and gloom and hell fire. On the other side of the fence, those preaching eternal love admit the world is a mess but all will be well when all is said and done including the heathens.
The Preterist, on the other hand, recognizes the obvious and as a result, claim that Jesus DID come back in the time of the generation he spoke to but to do so, they have to spiritualize lots of passages to make their interpretations work.
By what evidence do you make this claim?
Prove that I, as a preterist, do this?
It occurred to me once that "generation" can mean a kind of thing. So the Jews will still exist when the Second Coming occurs. However that was speculative and may not entirely work.
Let's take for example...the sun will not give its light, the moon turns to blood etc....how do I define this passage in Matthew 24/Mark 13 as allegorical? Do I need to step outside of the Bible in its culture to prove this? I can, but I don't need to. Read carefully, we are going to backtrack a few hundred years during the time of Isaiah....
Isa 13:10For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
This above is a prophecy of Babylon and its fall. The Lord is judging them. This type of language, is used in direct referrence to this very theme. It has nothing to do with an physical "cosmological" disturbance, but it is a rendering of God's judgement on said nation. By this prophecy, when Babylon fell a few hundred years later, Israelites looked back on the prophecy and saw that it was God who willed this to happen.
When Christ said these things to His disciples, they were very familiar with this language, as it is everywhere throughout the Old Testament. They knew that by His direct referrence to not one stone on another Matt 24:2 just minutes before, they knew that with this type of language Christ used, along with what he had conveyed, judgement on that specific nation, Israel, in the latter days, were soon, at hand, and about to come.
By what evidence do you make this claim?
Prove that I, as a preterist, do this?
Examples would suffice...thanks!
And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. - Matthew 24:14
Was the Gospel preached to the entire world in the first century and if it was, did 'the end' come? I do note the writer carefully mentions that the Disciples asked about the end of 'the age' and not the end of the world, but I am not so sure the Disciples were that educated to be concerned about an epoch (age) as they were about the end of the world itself.
Quote:
Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
When did the above happen in the first century?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
