Interesting preterist argument

[NotTheRock]

Here's another interesting video from this guy.

 

[Davy]

I actually don't believe so. Not really. Yes, our bodies die, but we are immediately "resurrected" in spiritual form, so we continue to live, but in a different form. Jesus told us "If you believe in me, you will never die. Do you believe this?". I believe it.

Prior to Jesus, people died. That's why the old testament is full of the phrase "He slept with his fathers in the dust of the earth". That phrase was never used in the new testament, because men no longer sleep in the dust of the earth. At that time King Solomon said "the dead know nothing". There was actual death back then, but that no longer applies, because we will never be dead. We who live today, will never experience the state of death.

It doesn't matter what you believe about flesh death to try and support your faulty view, simply because the concept of death is not destroyed until after Christ's future "thousand years" reign, as written in Revelation 20...

Rev 20:14
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
KJV

Therefore, even though you want to refer to the idea of resurrection to mean 'death' is now no more, the above still makes your theory wrong, for the "second death" of one's spirit with soul cast into the future "lake of fire" is when the concept of "death" will also go into the "lake of fire" and be no more. Until that future "lake of fire" event, the "second death" is still in effect for the wicked.

And per Jesus in John 5:28-29, the wicked dead will also have a resurrection on the day of Jesus' future coming, which their's is called the "resurrection of damnation". Those will stand in condemnation all throughout Christ's future "thousand years" reign with His elect.

 

[claninja]

But that is still... not how to interpret what Jesus said there. Whether a generation means to a certain age is not what that Olivet prophecy is about...

Matt 24:32-34
32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:

33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.

34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
KJV

Jesus was NOT speaking of the generation at His 1st coming.

Jesus was speaking of the LAST generation that will "see all these things". So what's that about? See all what "things"?

Well, what things was Lord Jesus giving the Church there upon the Mount of Olives?

Jesus was giving the 7 main SIGNS of the end that are to happen leading up to His future 2nd coming. Those are actually the SEALS of Revelation 6.

The FINAL generation on earth will see all those SIGNS of the end. That is why He said that final generation will not pass until they see all these SIGNS of the end (verses 33 & 34).

And here is one of the major proofs that Jesus was speaking of the final generation that will see all those things, i.e., SIGNS. The very last SIGN Lord Jesus gave there in His Olivet discourse is that of His future 2nd coming and gathering of His saints. Anyone with common sense well knows that will only be in the last generation of this present world, for Jesus showed there that He comes after the tribulation to gather His saints. That day of gathering the saints, i.e., His faithful Church, cannot be any other generation of time than the final generation of this world.

Some try to change the timing about that final generation, attempting to falsely spread those SIGNS over a period of the Church era, especially when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the 2nd temple in 70 A.D.

The destruction of the future 3rd temple today's Jews plan to build in Jerusalem will provide a DUAL FULFILLMENT of that not one stone atop another SIGN on the day of Christ's future 2nd coming. As of today, the Western Wall of huge stones still stand at the temple mount, along with the stones of the Dome of The Rock Muslim shrine on the temple mount.

The rest of the SIGNS Jesus gave there in Matthew 24 follow the Seals, Trumpets, and Vials of His Book of Revelation, with Jesus' future return on the 7th Trumpet, 7th Seal, and 7th Vial.

CONTEXTUALLY, the olivet discourse is Jesus’ RESPONSE to 2 questions - “when will these things be (the destruction of the 2nd temple) and what is the SIGN of your coming/end of the age?

GRAMMATICALLY , the antecedents to the phrase “all these things” in verse 34 refers to the entirety of the preceding events described in the Olivet Discourse. This is consistent with the flow of the passage, which contains absolutely no clear textual indicators of long, distinct, multi-thousand-year time gaps between any of the events mentioned to suggest that multiple generations would live through all the events.

LINGUISTICALLY, the evidence (from dictionaries, lexicons, scholarly commentaries, and English translations) points to genea having a definition of generation - “a group of people living at the same time; contemporaneous”


So your pattern of eisegesis seems to be negotiating the CONTEXT in order to fit your futuristic framework - “the destruction of the future 3rd temple”.

 

[claninja]

Correct but not any of the people of that time. Jesus was speaking of a future generation that would see all the events he described. The generation he spoke to saw none of those events.

CONTEXTUALLY, the olivet discourse is Jesus’ RESPONSE to 2 questions - “when will these things be (the destruction of the 2nd temple) and what is the SIGN of your coming/end of the age?

GRAMMATICALLY , the antecedents to the phrase “all these things” in verse 34 refers to the entirety of the preceding events described in the Olivet Discourse. This is consistent with the flow of the passage, which contains absolutely no clear textual indicators of long, distinct, multi-thousand-year time gaps between any of the events mentioned to suggest that multiple generations would live through all the events.

LINGUISTICALLY, the evidence (from dictionaries, lexicons, scholarly commentaries, and English translations) points to genea having a definition of generation - “a group of people living at the same time; contemporaneous”

So your pattern of eisegesis seems to be negotiating the CONTEXT in order to fit your futuristic framework. In other words, you don’t seem to believe Jesus was really talking about the temple complex of His day, contrary to the plain reading of the text, because it wouldn’t fit with your futuristic framework.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I don't believe people are still dying.

You're not living in reality then.

Don't forget, Jesus said we would never die.

Spiritually. He didn't say we would never die physically. Please join us in reality.

Paul said that he would be with Christ after death, which means he would still live.

Yes, his soul and spirit went to heaven with Christ after his bodily death. But, he did die physically/bodily and will be bodily resurrected in the future when Christ returns.

Why would we not believe these two men? Has Jesus not conquered death?

I do believe them. You just don't understand them. Yes, Jesus conquered death bodily so that we too can live forever bodily. We still await our bodily redemption when we will have immortal bodies.

 

[claninja]

Generally, Yes Genea in one context has the meaning of a timespan over a period of time, often greater than 70 years, where they exhibit a particular common characteristic or experience. Your argument that "It's an appeal to consistent, evidence-based linguistic analysis.", as popularity or tradition is also the justification for a particular meaning.

Again, the majority of biblical dictionaries, lexicons, scholarly commentaries, and English translations have genea, especially in Matthew 24:34, meaning generation - as in a group of contemporaneous people.

My justification for the definition is based on expert scholarly consensus. This is an appeal to authority. It is not an appeal to popularity. There’s a big difference.

The classical eisegesis tradition forces Genesis 15:16 into the Egyptian Israeli experience that is written about in Genesis 15:13-14 which is doing what you are accusing me of.

Now the fourth age of the existence of the nation of Israel falls, based on my own research, between 1020 AD and 2044 AD. Now 1948 AD is the only Israeli event that falls within this timespan.

"This augments the meaning of words in order to fit your personal framework rather than deriving meaning from the text." is what I believe the present-day historical accounts favour which is that they "are importing ancient history into the text rather than allowing the text to speak for itself based on linguistic, historical, and literary evidence."

It is my belief that the Armageddon judgement of the Kings of the earth will occur around the end of this present 6th age, which I believe will be the year 2044 AD. What is presently happening with respect to the nation of Israel is that all of the Kings of the earth are being drawn forming an army to invade the Land of Canaan under the leadership of the Little Horn, which will mark the end of the 2,300 year period that the Little Horn was given permission to use national armies to trample God's Sanctuary and His earthly Hosts, i.e. Israel. We can see this event already starting to take shape at this present time. The Sixth Bowl Judgement has given us the clues to watch for, for when the Kings of the Earth will assemble to go up against Israel.

But if all End Time Prophecy has already happened, then why are we still seeing evidence today of the Little Horn leading military forces into trampling Israel still?

The unfolding historical evidence does not support the Preterist understanding of End Time Prophecy and when it will be fulfilled. There is biblical evidence that there are many prophesied end time events that will not begin to take place for another 1,000 or so years unlike the Preterist understanding that all of prophecy has been fulfilled.

Shalom

You’re interpreting Genesis through a futuristic framework that isn’t grounded in the immediate literary and historical context of the passage itself. That’s a textbook case of eisegesis — importing external ideas or timelines into the text rather than drawing meaning from it.

In Genesis 15:13–16, the text explicitly connects the 400 years of affliction, the nation that enslaves them, and the return in the fourth generation. This was fulfilled in the Exodus. To separate verse 16 from the previous verses — or stretch it into the 21st century — ignores the internal coherence of the passage. That’s not sound exegesis; it’s a reinterpretation based on a modern framework.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

CONTEXTUALLY, the olivet discourse is Jesus’ RESPONSE to 2 questions - “when will these things be (the destruction of the 2nd temple) and what is the SIGN of your coming/end of the age?

GRAMMATICALLY , the antecedents to the phrase “all these things” in verse 34 refers to the entirety of the preceding events described in the Olivet Discourse. This is consistent with the flow of the passage, which contains absolutely no clear textual indicators of long, distinct, multi-thousand-year time gaps between any of the events mentioned to suggest that multiple generations would live through all the events.

LINGUISTICALLY, the evidence (from dictionaries, lexicons, scholarly commentaries, and English translations) points to genea having a definition of generation - “a group of people living at the same time; contemporaneous”

So your pattern of eisegesis seems to be negotiating the CONTEXT in order to fit your futuristic framework. In other words, you don’t seem to believe Jesus was really talking about the temple complex of His day, contrary to the plain reading of the text, because it wouldn’t fit with your futuristic framework.

How about looking at all of scripture and making sure you don't contradict any other scripture while interpreting the Olivet Discourse? Looks like you forgot to do that in your supposed exegesis of the text. Jesus did not come in any way, shape or form in 70 AD and the elect were not gathered in 70 AD. That has to be taken into account when reading the Olivet Discourse. Also, there was no end to any age in 70 AD. Preterists falsely claim that the imaginary old covenant age ended in 70 AD, but the old covenant was made obsolete by the blood of Christ well before that.

 

[claninja]

How about looking at all of scripture and making sure you don't contradict any other scripture while interpreting the Olivet Discourse? Looks like you forgot to do that in your supposed exegesis of the text. Jesus did not come in any way, shape or form in 70 AD and the elect were not gathered in 70 AD. That has to be taken into account when reading the Olivet Discourse. Also, there was no end to any age in 70 AD. Preterists falsely claim that the imaginary old covenant age ended in 70 AD, but the old covenant was made obsolete by the blood of Christ well before that.

You’re right—Jesus didn’t come on the clouds according to YOUR framework. But that’s the issue: you’re interpreting the Olivet Discourse through a futuristic lens instead of letting the passage speak on its own terms.

Accusing me of ignoring “all of Scripture” doesn’t address the specific contextual, grammatical, and linguistic evidence I presented from Matthew 24. Exegesis begins with what the passage actually says in its immediate setting—not with importing assumptions from other parts of Scripture to override clear meaning.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You’re right—Jesus didn’t come on the clouds according to YOUR framework. But that’s the issue: you’re interpreting the Olivet Discourse through a futuristic lens instead of letting the passage speak on its own terms.

LOL. I'm doing no such thing. Scripture does not teach anywhere that He would come again except that He would come again in the same manner in which He left, which was visibly and bodily. YOU are the one changing the text to fit YOUR framework.

Also, never does scripture teach anything about an old covenant age and the elect were not gathered in 70 AD. Do you account for these things? No, because you have your own flawed, rigid framework that doesn't take all of scripture into account.

Accusing me of ignoring “all of Scripture” doesn’t address the specific contextual, grammatical, and linguistic evidence I presented from Matthew 24.

LOL. Yes, it does. No amount of your supposed "contextual, grammatical, and linguistic evidence" can change the fact that you are contradicting other scripture with your interpretation of Matthew 24. None of that supposed "evidence" changes the fact that you are adding things to scripture that are never taught anywhere such as Jesus coming in 70 AD, the elect being gathered in 70 AD, and an imaginary old covenant age ending in 70 AD.

Exegesis begins with what the passage actually says in its immediate setting—not with importing assumptions from other parts of Scripture to override clear meaning.

Says you. You are not the ultimate authority on how exegesis should work even though you clearly think that you are. Your "exegesis" does not include making sure not to cause scripture to contradict itself.

 

[claninja]

LOL. I'm doing no such thing. Scripture does not teach anywhere that He would come again except that He would come again in the same manner in which He left, which was visibly and bodily. YOU are the one changing the text to fit YOUR framework.

Also, never does scripture teach anything about an old covenant age and the elect were not gathered in 70 AD. Do you account for these things? No, because you have your own flawed, rigid framework that doesn't take all of scripture into account.


LOL. Yes, it does. No amount of your supposed "contextual, grammatical, and linguistic evidence" can change the fact that you are contradicting other scripture with your interpretation of Matthew 24. None of that supposed "evidence" changes the fact that you are adding things to scripture that are never taught anywhere such as Jesus coming in 70 AD, the elect being gathered in 70 AD, and an imaginary old covenant age ending in 70 AD.


Says you. You are not the ultimate authority on how exegesis should work even though you clearly think that you are. Your "exegesis" does not include making sure not to cause scripture to contradict itself.

Your response is high on rhetoric and emotion, but low on direct textual engagement. You rely heavily on an external framework to claim I’m wrong. I do not accept your external framework or how you apply it to the Olivet Discourse—just as you would likely reject a premillennial's external framework that excludes any and all connection to 70 AD, particularly in matthew 24:1-3. It would be much more helpful if you pointed out where my argument (context, grammar, linguistics) was incorrect, without importing your external framework.

I never denied that I negotiate with the Text. We all do. However, my negotiation is not contextual, grammatical, or linguistical. My negotiation is with the "nature" of vs 29-31 because CONTEXTUALLY, Jesus' response includes the destruction of the 2nd temple, GRAMMATICALLY, the antecedents to "all these things" in vs 34 includes all the previous events of the olivet discourse which contains absolutely no clear textual indicators of long, distinct, multi-thousand-year time gaps between any of the events, and LINGUISTICALLY, the evidence (from dictionaries, lexicons, scholarly commentaries, and English translations) points to genea having a definition of generation - “a group of people living at the same time; contemporaneous”.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Your response is high on rhetoric and emotion, but low on direct textual engagement.

LOL. You already know what I believe and why, so I don't need to go into that here. You have no scripture whatsoever which teaches that Jesus would come in 70 AD. None. And no scripture which teaches a gathering of the elect in 70 AD. No scripture which teaches such a thing as an old covenant age. This is not rhetoric and emotion, this is me showing that you bring bias and a false framework into your study of the Olivet Discourse. You cause it to contradict other scripture. No amount of your word salads and supposed "direct textual engagement" can change that.

You rely heavily on an external framework to claim I’m wrong.

Why would you not take all of scripture into account when interpreting any given verse or passage? Your approach is flawed. You try to interpret scripture in isolation from the rest of scripture, which is a bad way of interpreting scripture. It leads you to cause scripture to contradict itself.

I do not accept your external framework or how you apply it to the Olivet Discourse—just as you would likely reject a premillennial's external framework that excludes any and all connection to 70 AD, particularly in matthew 24:1-3. It would be much more helpful if you pointed out where my argument (context, grammar, linguistics) was incorrect, without importing your external framework.

No, I'm not going to just ignore the rest of scripture when interpreting the Olivet Discourse.

I never denied that I negotiate with the Text. We all do. However, my negotiation is not contextual, grammatical, or linguistical. My negotiation is with the "nature" of vs 29-31 because CONTEXTUALLY, Jesus' response includes the destruction of the 2nd temple, GRAMMATICALLY, the antecedents to "all these things" in vs 34 includes all the previous events of the olivet discourse which contains absolutely no clear textual indicators of long, distinct, multi-thousand-year time gaps between any of the events, and LINGUISTICALLY, the evidence (from dictionaries, lexicons, scholarly commentaries, and English translations) points to genea having a definition of generation - “a group of people living at the same time; contemporaneous”.

You can't support your interpretation of the Olivet Discourse with any other scripture. Nowhere does scripture teach that Jesus would return any other way except visibly and bodily, which was the manner in which He ascended to heaven (Acts 1:9-11). Nowhere does scripture teach that the gathering of the elect would occur before Jesus returns bodily. Nowhere does scripture teach such a thing as an old covenant age. Why would you interpret the Olivet Discourse without taking those things into account?

As for Matthew 24:34, we already talked about that. The word translated as "this" in that verse is "houtos" and it can mean "the same". What Jesus was saying in that verse is the same generation that would witness "all these things" which would indicate His coming was near, would not pass away until all of those things were fulfilled. Jesus did not come in 70 AD and the elect were not gathered in 70 AD. None of your contextual, grammatical and linguistic word salads can change that.

 

[claninja]

You have no scripture whatsoever which teaches that Jesus would come in 70 AD

I agree There are no scriptures that specifically, explicitly, nor clearly state Christ would come in 70ad.

There are only scriptures that state Christ would come before this generation passed away - Matthew 24:34

Why would you not take all of scripture into account when interpreting any given verse or passage? Your approach is flawed. You try to interpret scripture in isolation from the rest of scripture, which is a bad way of interpreting scripture. It leads you to cause scripture to contradict itself.

Please provide specific, clear, and explicit scriptures that contradict the belief that Jesus would come on the clouds within the lifetime of his first century audience.

No, I'm not going to just ignore the rest of scripture when interpreting the Olivet Discourse.

I agree, we shouldn’t. But meaning from a text should start with the passage itself before applying external scripture . That’s proper exegesis.

You can't support your interpretation of the Olivet Discourse with any other scripture. Nowhere does scripture teach that Jesus would return any other way except visibly and bodily, which was the manner in which He ascended to heaven (Acts 1:9-11). Nowhere does scripture teach that the gathering of the elect would occur before Jesus returns bodily. Nowhere does scripture teach such a thing as an old covenant age. Why would you interpret the Olivet Discourse without taking those things into account?

I can’t support it according to your framework.

As for Matthew 24:34, we already talked about that. The word translated as "this" in that verse is "houtos" and it can mean "the same". What Jesus was saying in that verse is the same generation that would witness "all these things" which would indicate His coming was near, would not pass away until all of those things were fulfilled. Jesus did not come in 70 AD and the elect were not gathered in 70 AD. None of your contextual, grammatical and linguistic word salads can change that.

And I absolutely agree “this” generation is flexible enough to mean “this”, as in Jesus’ contemporaries OR “this”, as in those that live through “ALL these things”.

However,

CONTEXTUALLY, “all these things” include, in part, Jesus’ response about the temple destruction as per question 1.

GRAMMATICALLY, the antecedents to “all these things” are all the events in the olivet discourse, which include the temple destruction. There there are absolutely zero distinct nor clear multi thousand year gaps or transition clauses between events.

Therefore, the evidence, outside of your framework, points to Jesus’ contemporaneous generation. It’s your framework that argues otherwise, not the text itself.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I agree There are no scriptures that specifically, explicitly, nor clearly state Christ would come in 70ad.

There are only scriptures that state Christ would come before this generation passed away - Matthew 24:34

The generation that would see the things that would indicate that His one and only future coming was near. His one future second coming which scripture says would be in like manner as He ascended to heaven (Acts 1:9-11).

Please provide specific, clear, and explicit scriptures that contradict the belief that Jesus would come on the clouds within the lifetime of his first century audience.

Scripture teaches that He would come a second time (Hebrews 9:28) and it would be in like manner as He ascended to heaven, which was visibly and bodily (Acts 1:9-11).

1 Thessalonians 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. 15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

When He does come it will be accompanied by the resurrection of the dead in Christ and the gathering of all who are in Christ to meet Him in the air. This has not yet happened and this is the only coming of Christ that would occur after His first coming.

I agree, we shouldn’t. But meaning from a text should start with the passage itself before applying external scripture . That’s proper exegesis.

No, proper exegesis is keeping in mind what the rest of scripture teaches before starting with the passage itself. I don't need you to tell me what is proper exegesis. Your supposed proper exegesis has led you to believe in the false doctrinal system of preterism, so it's clearly not working well for you at all.

I can’t support it according to your framework.

You can't support it with scripture.

And I absolutely agree “this” generation is flexible enough to mean “this”, as in Jesus’ contemporaries OR “this”, as in those that live through “ALL these things”.

Then, you have no excuse for thinking it has anything to do with 70 AD. Jesus did not come in 70 AD, there was no gathering of the elect in 70 AD and the old covenant did not end in 70 AD. Scripture does not each any of that. Yet, you believe all those things, anyway.

However,

CONTEXTUALLY, “all these things” include, in part, Jesus’ response about the temple destruction as per question 1.

No, they do not. That's like saying that, in Luke 21:36, Jesus was saying to pray to be worthy to escape all of the things He previously talked about despite Him previously saying that they would see things that would indicate His coming was near. So, He was obviously not telling them to pray to escape things that He said believers would see. And, things He previously talked about were Christ's second coming and the gathering of the elect. He was not saying to pray to be worthy to escape His coming and the gathering of the elect or to escape the things that would indicate His coming was near. Your understanding of what "all these things" means is fatally flawed.

GRAMMATICALLY, the antecedents to “all these things” are all the events in the olivet discourse, which include the temple destruction. There there are absolutely zero distinct nor clear multi thousand year gaps or transition clauses between events.

Scripture does not always spell things out to us, but I know there is no room for spiritual discernment in your flawed framework because you have said so before.

Therefore, the evidence, outside of your framework, points to Jesus’ contemporaneous generation. It’s your framework that argues otherwise, not the text itself.

Haha. Wrong. Your doctrinal bias says the text itself points to Jesus' contemporaneous generation, but what the text points to is the generation that would be in existence just before His return and He has not yet returned.

 

[NotTheRock]

I'm glad we got all that settled!

 

[Davy]

CONTEXTUALLY, the olivet discourse is Jesus’ RESPONSE to 2 questions - “when will these things be (the destruction of the 2nd temple) and what is the SIGN of your coming/end of the age?

That's what Jesus said at the start before He referenced the "parable of the fig tree", which He commanded us to learn. But the SIGNS He gave in answer are one topic, and the timing per the "parable of the fig tree" is another topic to show us what generation to expect ALL those SIGNS to happen in.


So, do you know what that "parable of the fig tree" is about that Jesus commanded us to learn? Notice He linked the symbolic time of "summer" with it, (harvest time; symbolic for His future coming)...

Matt 24:32-36
32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.

What would be "even at the doors"? What really is Lord Jesus referring to above, what "summer" is He saying is "nigh" (near) when the fig tree sprouts leaves?

34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away.

Heaven and earth shall pass away in connection with that day, that symbolic "summer"?

YES! for that is about the "day of the Lord" events, the LAST DAY of this present world when Jesus returns to gather His Church. It is the day of 2 Peter 3:10 when God's "consuming fire" will burn man's works off this earth like Peter said. That's what that idea of heaven and earth is about with it passing away. It represents the change to the world to come with Jesus's 2nd coming, and the end of this present world time. (That future event of heaven and earth passing away is also referred to in Rev. 20:11, Rev. 6:14, Rev.16:20).


Now are you still... going to TRY and tell me that is about 70 A.D. when the Roman army destroyed Jerusalem and the 2nd temple?@&!??

36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but My Father only.
KJV

Then Lord Jesus even refers to that future event as being a day that no man knows, not even Him, but The Father only. And that is about the future day of Christ's 2nd coming which is to come "as a thief in the night". Even Lord Jesus said that He comes "as a thief" in Rev.16:15, and for His servants to not be deceived, keeping our garments (of white promised us).

Here's the Luke 21 version of this. Again, what is the actual timing Jesus gave here...

Luke 21:29-36
29 And He spake to them a parable; "Behold the fig tree, and all the trees;
30 When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand.
31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.
32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

In this version, Lord Jesus gives just a little bit more info of the timing, and links it with the coming of the "kingdom of God". Did that come in 70 A.D.? NO! Jesus was referring to God's future Kingdom that only will occur at His future 2nd coming.

In the next Luke 22 Chapter, at verse 18, Lord Jesus defines that timing for that "kingdom of God" being when He returns and drinks of the fruit of the vine...

Luke 22:18
18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
KJV

Continuing in Luke 21...

Luke 21:33-36
33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but My words shall not pass away.
34 And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares.
35 For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth.
36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.
KJV

Was Lord Jesus referring to 70 A.D. with that? NO! of course not. He was pointing to the very end of this present world on the day of His future 2nd coming, known as the "day of the Lord" that will come "as a thief in the night" per Apostles Paul and Peter.

 

[Davy]

So your pattern of eisegesis seems to be negotiating the CONTEXT in order to fit your futuristic framework - “the destruction of the future 3rd temple”.

Statements like the above just do not work. That's just a false assumption with no backing at all in the actual Bible Scripture about the generation of the "parable of the fig tree" subject.

You only show your Biblical illiteracy about that "parable of the fig tree", and even sound like you are rebellious against Lord Jesus' command for us to learn it.

And trying to use technical terms like in your post to me certainly does not work either. We are living in times today when even the majority of uneducated brethren recognize when someone is trying... to sound educated like they know what they are talking about, when they do not. God did not give His Word to intellectuals. He gave it to the average peoples who love Him which He also gives The Holy Spirit to, and they don't need to try and negotiate technical terms that 'seeming' intellectuals use to deceive with.

 

[claninja]

The generation that would see the things that would indicate that His one and only future coming was near. His one future second coming which scripture says would be in like manner as He ascended to heaven (Acts 1:9-11).

Grammatically, "all these things" also includes the fall of temple. So from a contextual, grammatical, and linguistical standpoint - This generation will not pass away until the temple is destroyed and the son of man comes on the clouds.

cripture teaches that He would come a second time (Hebrews 9:28) and it would be in like manner as He ascended to heaven, which was visibly and bodily (Acts 1:9-11).

1 Thessalonians 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. 15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

When He does come it will be accompanied by the resurrection of the dead in Christ and the gathering of all who are in Christ to meet Him in the air. This has not yet happened and this is the only coming of Christ that would occur after His first coming.

None of this demonstrates that Jesus' first century audience did not believe Christ would come within their generation.

No, proper exegesis is keeping in mind what the rest of scripture teaches before starting with the passage itself. I don't need you to tell me what is proper exegesis. Your supposed proper exegesis has led you to believe in the false doctrinal system of preterism, so it's clearly not working well for you at all.

That is literally not proper exegesis. Reading a specific theological framework into the text PRIOR to understanding the text's context, syntax, grammar, linguistics, audience relevance, etc... is an exegetical fallacy (Exegetical Fallacies in the Greek New Testament - New Testament Greek).

It's how many hyper futurist premils will argue matthew 24:1-3 is about some future 3rd temple.

No, they do not. That's like saying that, in Luke 21:36, Jesus was saying to pray to be worthy to escape all of the things He previously talked about despite Him previously saying that they would see things that would indicate His coming was near. So, He was obviously not telling them to pray to escape things that He said believers would see. And, things He previously talked about were Christ's second coming and the gathering of the elect. He was not saying to pray to be worthy to escape His coming and the gathering of the elect or to escape the things that would indicate His coming was near. Your understanding of what "all these things" means is fatally flawed.

Luke 21 is not Matthew 24. The antecedents of "all these things" in Luke 21:36 are different than the antecedents of "all these things" in Matthew 24:34. Conflating the 2 is another great example of improper exegesis through the Over harmonization fallacy

Then, you have no excuse for thinking it has anything to do with 70 AD.

Jesus' response to his disciples included absolutely nothing about 70ad in the olivet discourse?

Scripture does not always spell things out to us, but I know there is no room for spiritual discernment in your flawed framework because you have said so before.

I've never said that before. So either you are lying, didn't understand what I said, or aren't remembering things properly.

our doctrinal bias says the text itself points to Jesus' contemporaneous generation, but what the text points to is the generation that would be in existence just before His return and He has not yet returned.

The text points to the generation that would not pass away prior "ALL these things happen". GRAMMATICALLY, the antecedents to "all these things" are ALL the events of the olivet discourse, which include the destruction of Jerusalem in 66-70ad, as well as the coming of the son of man on the clouds.

Your negotiation appears to be inserting subjective multi thousand year gaps between events within the olivet discourse, where GRAMMATICALLY there aren't any, in order to support your framework.

 

[claninja]

So, do you know what that "parable of the fig tree" is about that Jesus commanded us to learn?

The parable of the fig tree is an analogy. Just as when a fig tree sprouts leaves you know summer is near, so also when you see "all these things", know it is near, right at the door, or as Luke puts it, the kingdom of God is near.

What are the antecedents to "all these things"?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Grammatically, "all these things" also includes the fall of temple.

No, that is not the case. All these things do not include the fall of the temple buildings in any way, shape or form. All these things would be the things that occur just before Jesus comes at the end of the age when the elect are gathered and that has not occurred yet.

So from a contextual, grammatical, and linguistical standpoint - This generation will not pass away until the temple is destroyed and the son of man comes on the clouds.

Wrong. You're just making baseless claims here. Nothing more.

None of this demonstrates that Jesus' first century audience did not believe Christ would come within their generation.

It doesn't matter what they might have believed. Jesus said no one knew the day or hour of His coming. What day and what hour did He come in 70 AD?

That is literally not proper exegesis.

LOL. You need to stop saying things like this as if I care at all what you think about that. I don't. I don't believe that you have a proper grasp on what constitutes proper exegesis. No one who believes in preterism has the authority to tell anyone else what is proper exegesis.

Reading a specific theological framework into the text PRIOR to understanding the text's context, syntax, grammar, linguistics, audience relevance, etc... is an exegetical fallacy (Exegetical Fallacies in the Greek New Testament - New Testament Greek).

LOL. You are a slave to men's fallacious imaginations. I don't need anyone else to tell me how to properly interpret scripture.

It's how many hyper futurist premils will argue matthew 24:1-3 is about some future 3rd temple.

Say what now? There is no way anyone can reasonably argue that Matthew 24:1-3 is about anything but the temple buildings standing at that time.

Luke 21 is not Matthew 24.

They both are accounts of the Olivet Discourse. We need to look at both of them along with Mark 13 to get the full picture of what Jesus said in His discourse.

The antecedents of "all these things" in Luke 21:36 are different than the antecedents of "all these things" in Matthew 24:34.

Actually, it's Luke 21:32 that is directly parallel to Matthew 24:34, not Luke 21:36. Would you try to say the same thing about Luke 21:32 and Matthew 24:34?

Conflating the 2 is another great example of improper exegesis through the Over harmonization fallacy

LOL. Your comments truly crack me up. You really think you are the UTLIMATE AUTHORITY on proper exegesis, but you most certainly are not.

Jesus' response to his disciples included absolutely nothing about 70ad in the olivet discourse?

You know how I interpret the Olivet Discourse by now, don't you? I've told you multiple times. I see Matthew 24:15-22 as relating to 70 AD and the rest to His future coming at the end of this temporal age.

I've never said that before. So either you are lying, didn't understand what I said, or aren't remembering things properly.

I don't lie on this forum. Ever. Maybe I misunderstood what you said, but I asked you before how spiritual discernment factors in to how you interpret scripture and I referenced 1 Corinthians 2:9-16, and you seemed to indicate that it's not a factor in how you interpret scripture. So, clarify it for me now. What role does spiritual discernment from the Holy Spirit play in your interpretation of scripture?

The text points to the generation that would not pass away prior "ALL these things happen".

Right. But, what things? Literally everything He previously mentioned? No. That's why I bring up Luke 21:36 where He talks about praying to be worthy to escape all these things that would come to pass. He can't possibly have been talking about literally all of the things He previously mentioned there.

GRAMMATICALLY, the antecedents to "all these things" are ALL the events of the olivet discourse, which include the destruction of Jerusalem in 66-70ad, as well as the coming of the son of man on the clouds.

Wrong. That can't possibly be true. Jesus did not come in 70 AD. There was no gathering of the elect in 70 AD. The old covenant did not end in 70 AD. Unless you can show scripture teaching those things, your interpretation of the Olivet Discourse can't hold up.

Your negotiation appears to be inserting subjective multi thousand year gaps between events within the olivet discourse, where GRAMMATICALLY there aren't any, in order to support your framework.

My "negotiation" includes taking ALL of scripture into consideration. Yours does not. Your "negotiation" puts your imaginary grammar rules above all other considerations which I believe is a terrible approach to interpreting scripture.

 

[claninja]

You only show your Biblical illiteracy about that "parable of the fig tree", and even sound like you are rebellious against Lord Jesus' command for us to learn it.

nice ad hominem.

And trying to use technical terms like in your post to me certainly does not work either. We are living in times today when even the majority of uneducated brethren recognize when someone is trying... to sound educated like they know what they are talking about, when they do not. God did not give His Word to intellectuals. He gave it to the average peoples who love Him which He also gives The Holy Spirit to, and they don't need to try and negotiate technical terms that 'seeming' intellectuals use to deceive with.

Paul was an intellectual.