Olivet Discourse revisited
- Thread starter Randy Kluth
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Right. I agree. I'm not getting my hopes up when it comes to him, though.
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
That would make your interpretation full preterist. Not even historist at that point.
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
Not applying at all. Those are the words in each Gospel. Just pointing out two different events and scenarios, because both authors used different words.
If you mash them all together, how is that rightly dividing God's Word?
Then you have to say, oh by the way, we may have double fulfillment, because they do apply to two different times and events.
Preterism did not exist before the 17th century.
But vengeance, tribulation, and affliction did.
At the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
No, not "double fulfillment"--just interpreting words as I find them *in context.* Context is king. Nothing "mashed together"--just synonyms that in context mean the same thing, or refer to the same event using different words.
The 70 AD event can be looked at as Divine vengeance, or punishment, because God destroyed Jewish temple worship at that time because of the sins of Jews that had brought to an end their covenant under the Law.
But the same event can be looked at as Tribulation, because it caused trouble for *all* the Jewish People, both wicked and righteous. The wicked were being judged, but the righteous were the victims of the sins of the Jews, and remained as a testimony to Christ in the midst of their troubles.
This is not difficult to understand. If you disagree, fine--just don't say it makes no sense--it makes perfectly good sense. The question simply asks, Is this true or not?
Then there must be three different events and scenarios, because Mark used a different word from Matthew and Luke.
What is the third event and scenario?
"Rightly dividing" means "accurately handling", not "arbitrarily hacking" as dispens practise.
Provide a name, date, source, and verbatim quote from a recognized orthodox Christian exegete prior to the 18th century who claimed that "they do apply to two different times and events".
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Right. It's just ridiculous when someone tries to label us as preterists (he even called you a full preterist - ugh) just because we believe that Jerusalem and its temple buildings were destroyed just as Jesus said they would be. And that happened in 70 AD.
Does that belief mean that we also think that Jesus's second coming and the end of the age occurred in 70 AD as preterists believe? No, of course not.
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
These conditions existed since Noah's day. Does not change your interpretation from being full preterism.
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
How is mashing events, and Scripture together "accurately handling" Scripture?
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
That is not what these two are saying at all. They claim the events of the Second Coming as portrayed in Matthew 24 all happened in 70AD.
I already pointed out that Luke 21 happened in and around 70AD. Saying what happened in Luke 21 as fulfilled in 66AD to 70AD, is not even partial preterism. It is the historical record.
Partial preterism is trying to place parts of the Olivet Discourse in 70AD that don't belong there. Partial or full preterism is not pointing out the parts fulfulilled in 70AD. Obviously people with the NT available after 90AD already knew that parts had been fulfilled. They would not be considered preterist, not even by covenantee, obviously who stated preterism did not exist until the Reformation.
Preterism and Jerusalem did not exist in Noah's day.
According to your definition of preterism, Jesus was a preterist, because He prophesied of events occurring up to and including 70 AD.
Matthew, Mark, and Luke all described the same event, the destruction of Jerusalem.
Are you saying that they were mashers?
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Which two? I was talking to covenantee. Do you mean him and Randy? I don't know if Randy believes that about Matthew 24, but I don't believe that covenantee does.
@covenantee Do you believe that everything written about in Matthew 24 happened in 70 AD?
Which part of it? Not all of it did. Luke 21:20-24 is a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20. That happened in 70 AD, but the rest either has happened on an ongoing basis or will happen in the future (second coming of Jesus, gathering of the elect, destruction of unbelievers, the judgment).
Are you talking about all of Luke 21? If so, that is not correct. It's only Luke 21:6 and Luke 21:20-24a that occurred in 70 AD.
I agree with that. But, I probably don't completely agree with you on which parts those are.
What you think belongs in 70 AD, and what actually belongs in 70 AD, are vastly different.
Here's something that does belong in 70 AD.
DECEIVERS
Matthew: “And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you, For many shall come in my name saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many” (24:4,5).
Mark: “And Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you; For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many” (13:5,6).
Luke: “And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived; for many shall come in my name saying, I am Christ, and the time draweth near; go ye not therefore after them” (21:8).
We notice that all three accounts warn about deceivers. But Luke’s account explains WHEN these things would happen. Jesus Said: “And the time DRAWETH NEAR: go ye not therefore after them.” Jesus was not talking about something that would take place hundreds or thousands of years later. Jesus was warning his disciples about something that was drawing near in their time. This is plain.
Did such deceivers or false Christs arise and deceive many in those years before the destruction of Jerusalem? Yes.
According to Josephus, the noted Jewish historian, twelve years after our Saviour’s death, a certain impostor named Theudas persuaded a great multitude to follow him to the river Jordan which he claimed would divide for their passage. At the time of Felix (who is mentioned in the book of Acts), the country of the Jews was filled with impostors who Felix had put to death EVERY DAY — a statement which indicates that there were many of such in those days.
An Egyptian who “pretended to be a prophet” gathered 30,000 men, claiming that he would show “how, at his command, the walls of Jerusalem would fall down.”
Another deceiver was Simon, a sorcerer, who led people to believe he was the great power of God (See Acts 8). According to Irenaeus, Simon claimed to be the Son of God and creator of angels. Jerome says that he claimed to be the Word of God, the Almighty. Justin relates that he went to Rome and was acclaimed as a god by his magical powers.
Origen mentions a certain wonder-worker, Dositheus, who claimed he was the Christ foretold by Moses. Another deceiver in those days was Barchochebas who, according to Jerome, claimed to vomit flames. Bar-jesus is mentioned in Acts 13:6 as a sorcerer and false prophet.
These are examples of the deceivers of whom history says there were a great number, and of whom Jesus had prophesied that there would be “many.”
Great Prophecies of the Bible
Ralph Woodrow
Last edited:
Certainly not bro. The disciples asked two questions of Jesus, the first relating to the destruction of the temple which occurred in 70 AD, and the second relating to His second coming. Jesus answered both.
Last edited:
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
That's what I thought you believed and I agree. But, Timtofly said you "claim the events of the Second Coming as portrayed in Matthew 24 all happened in 70AD.". Just another lie from him.
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
We are not talking about Noah, Jesus, nor the first century. We are talking about your interpretation.
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
At what point? Certainly while standing at the Temple. Not after leaving the temple.
Luke gave a different part of the Olivet Discourse, not the same part as the other two gave.
Mashing together the events of several days is your interpretation of mashed events, that you claim all happened already, a preterist interpretation.
I have pointed out that Luke was talking about the first century events. Matthew was talking about the Second Coming events. You mash them altogether into one single event, the destruction of Jerusalem. Point out in Matthew 24 where Jerusalem is destroyed.
Similar threads
