Interesting preterist argument

[claninja]

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.

GRAMMATICALLY it does. According to your subjective frame work it doesn't.

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

Argue it Grammatically then. There should be clear grammatical clues for multi thousand year gaps within the events of the olivet discourse. You know, like the clear grammatical gap within the 70 week prophecy (this last part was sarcasm).

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?

Audience relevance is important for proper exegesis. It does matter what they believed. So can you provide even 1 scripture that clearly states the coming on the clouds would not occur within Jesus' contemporary audience?

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.

You can disagree with me all you want on my negotiation of the "nature" of Matthew 24:29-31. But so far you have provided zero contextual, grammatical, or linguistical rebuttals. All you have provided is that "the coming on the clouds" didn't happen in 70ad according to YOUR framework, therefore you can insert subjective multi thousand year gaps between events where you deem fit. That argument doesn't rebut nor address my argument.

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

Subjective argument. I could say the same thing about you.

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

I absolutely agree, but some premils will argue that, by IMPORTING THEIR FRAMEWORK ONTO THE TEXT prior to understanding the passage in its own context.

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.

Over harmonization fallacy.

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?

I'll say the same thing I've been saying. Luke 21:32 or 36 antecedents are found in luke 21. Matthew 24:34 antecedents are found in Matthew 24.

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

Right back at ya.

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.

Right, you need to insert subjective made up gaps, where none exist Grammatically, in order to support your framework.

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.

The antecedents to "all these things" in Luke's olivet discourse sound like things believers should pray they have the strength to escape.

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.

Not according to your subjective framework.

My "negotiation" includes taking ALL of scripture into consideration.

So does mine, its just a different framework than yours based on the contextual, grammatical, and linguistical analysis of the olivet disourse - this generation will not pass away until all these things happen.

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?

So you just write things that may not be true about someone personally because you didn't understand? As to your question on role. It's through prayer, reflection, and study that the holy spirit guides us to understand the spiritual things of scripture - loving God and your neighbor (and who is thy neighor?) is greater than temple sacrifices; the death, resurrection, and ascension of the messiah brought about salvation, not an earthly war lord looking to set up an earthly kingdom; the kingdom of God is not of this world; etc....

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

GRAMMATICALLY it does. According to your subjective frame work it doesn't.

No, it does not. You act like you're stating facts. You are not. You're giving your opinion about what it says grammatically, and I disagree with your opinion.

Argue it Grammatically then. There should be clear grammatical clues for multi thousand year gaps within the events of the olivet discourse. You know, like the clear grammatical gap within the 70 week prophecy (this last part was sarcasm).

I have already talked to you about this. Do you not remember anything we discuss? You are so rigid in your approach, that it's no wonder that you fall for false teaching.

Audience relevance is important for proper exegesis. It does matter what they believed.

It does NOT necessarily matter. Do you somehow not know that they were wrong about a number of things until they became enlightened later when they received the Holy Spirit?

So can you provide even 1 scripture that clearly states the coming on the clouds would not occur within Jesus' contemporary audience?

Hello? I provided 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17. Did you just ignore that?

You can disagree with me all you want on my negotiation of the "nature" of Matthew 24:29-31. But so far you have provided zero contextual, grammatical, or linguistical rebuttals.

LOL. You have ZERO scripture to support your false doctrine that Jesus returned in 70 AD, that the elect were gathered in 70 AD and that the old covenant ended in 70 AD. So, how about you do THAT? Tell me the exact day and hour that Jesus returned in 70 AD if you think He returned then.

All you have provided is that "the coming on the clouds" didn't happen in 70ad according to YOUR framework, therefore you can insert subjective multi thousand year gaps between events where you deem fit. That argument doesn't rebut nor address my argument.

You are boring me. What are you doing to show that scripture ever teaches that Jesus would come back in some other way than visibly and bodily in like manner as He left? Nothing.

I absolutely agree, but some premils will argue that, by IMPORTING THEIR FRAMEWORK ONTO THE TEXT prior to understanding the passage in its own context.

Who cares? There is no possible way to turn the temple buildings standing at that time that the disciples and Jesus were clearly talking about into some future temple.

Over harmonization fallacy.

Say what? What a ridiculous argument. This argument is so weak that it makes me not be able to take you seriously at all. There is ONE Olivet Discourse and it is recorded in Matthew 24-25, Mark 13 and Luke 21. To act as if we can't look at all of them to see the big picture of what Jesus said in the ONE Olivet Discourse is the biggest fallacy imaginable.

I'll say the same thing I've been saying. Luke 21:32 or 36 antecedents are found in luke 21. Matthew 24:34 antecedents are found in Matthew 24.

Total nonsense. You are acting as if Luke 21 and Matthew 24 are separate Olivet Discourses, but they are not.

Right, you need to insert subjective made up gaps, where none exist Grammatically, in order to support your framework.

I support my doctrine with ALL of scripture. A concept that you clearly do not understand.

The antecedents to "all these things" in Luke's olivet discourse sound like things believers should pray they have the strength to escape.

See? There it is. You talk as if Luke's record of the Olivet discourse is somehow a record of a different Olivet Discourse than the one recorded in Matthew and Mark, which it is not. What a joke.

So you just write things that may not be true about someone personally because you didn't understand?

Say what? I wrote things according to the understanding I had of what you said. I didn't believe that I misunderstood what you said or else I would have asked for clarification.

As to your question on role. It's through prayer, reflection, and study that the holy spirit guides us to understand the spiritual things of scripture - loving God and your neighbor (and who is thy neighor?) is greater than temple sacrifices; the death, resurrection, and ascension of the messiah brought about salvation, not an earthly war lord looking to set up an earthly kingdom; the kingdom of God is not of this world; etc....

But, no spiritual discernment from the Holy Spirit is necessary to understand the Olivet Discourse? Just everything except for that?

 

[MatthewG]

I believe faithfully Jesus came back in 70Ad to gather his bride. I have no proof.

 

[Jay Ross]

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.

Perhaps you would like the following diagram which highlights that there where ten descendant generation born in Egypt in Ephraim's line and not the assumed four generation that you have accepted as being born in Egypt.



It is marvellous what can be found from just reading the scriptures. The provided genealogies in the scriptures provide a wealth of information when actually read instead of the written commentaries of mere men.

 

[ewq1938]

I believe faithfully Jesus came back in 70Ad to gather his bride. I have no proof.

He did not and there is proof. His disciples all were murdered except John, who died naturally. They were the first ones of the NT bride and NONE of them were "gathered" by Christ in any sense the scriptures speak of. AD70 is deception.

 

[Scott Downey]

He did not and there is proof. His disciples all were murdered except John, who died naturally. They were the first ones of the NT bride and NONE of them were "gathered" by Christ in any sense the scriptures speak of. AD70 is deception.

Excellent point. No Christian's were raptured when Jerusalem was sacked by Rome in 70 ad
That and many other facts are clear to an unencumbered mind. Honestly they are deluded and hardened who say differently. But so far nothing changes their minds. That takes a revelation to them from God. As is always the case involving the things of the Spirit. There is an ongoing spiritual warfare

 

[claninja]

No, it does not. You act like you're stating facts. You are not. You're giving your opinion about what it says grammatically, and I disagree with your opinion.


I have already talked to you about this. Do you not remember anything we discuss? You are so rigid in your approach, that it's no wonder that you fall for false teaching.


It does NOT necessarily matter. Do you somehow not know that they were wrong about a number of things until they became enlightened later when they received the Holy Spirit?


Hello? I provided 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17. Did you just ignore that?


LOL. You have ZERO scripture to support your false doctrine that Jesus returned in 70 AD, that the elect were gathered in 70 AD and that the old covenant ended in 70 AD. So, how about you do THAT? Tell me the exact day and hour that Jesus returned in 70 AD if you think He returned then.


You are boring me. What are you doing to show that scripture ever teaches that Jesus would come back in some other way than visibly and bodily in like manner as He left? Nothing.


Who cares? There is no possible way to turn the temple buildings standing at that time that the disciples and Jesus were clearly talking about into some future temple.


Say what? What a ridiculous argument. This argument is so weak that it makes me not be able to take you seriously at all. There is ONE Olivet Discourse and it is recorded in Matthew 24-25, Mark 13 and Luke 21. To act as if we can't look at all of them to see the big picture of what Jesus said in the ONE Olivet Discourse is the biggest fallacy imaginable.


Total nonsense. You are acting as if Luke 21 and Matthew 24 are separate Olivet Discourses, but they are not.


I support my doctrine with ALL of scripture. A concept that you clearly do not understand.


See? There it is. You talk as if Luke's record of the Olivet discourse is somehow a record of a different Olivet Discourse than the one recorded in Matthew and Mark, which it is not. What a joke.

My argument isn’t that Christ returned in 70ad. My argument is that Christ came on the clouds WITHIN the first century generation. That being said, Of course there are zero inspired scriptures, written post the first century generation of Jesus, that claim Christ had already come on the clouds - you are asking for something that doesn’t exist.

In the same way, there are zero scriptures that that clearly and explicitly argue that Christ will NOT come on the clouds within Jesus’ first century audience. 1 Thessalonians 4, written in the 50s, and acts 1, are not evidence of the belief that Christ would not come in the clouds within Jesus’ first century audience. Jesus said “this generation will not pass away until all these things occur”. From an audience relevance standpoint (all the NT books written by someone WITHIN Jesus’ generation - so from their writing viewpoint), there is absolutely no contradiction in their writings about the belief that Christ would come on the clouds in the first century. The contradiction is imposed by your framework.

As to the olivet discourse - you still have demonstrated ZERO GRAMMATICAL evidence for your subjective insertion of multi thousand year gaps between the events you deem fit. Your only argument is that Christ didn’t come on the clouds within Jesus’ generation, according to YOUR framework, therefore your negotiation with the text is to insert these arbitrary gaps, regardless of syntax and grammar. That’s NOT a rebuttal to my argument. My argument is that there are zero GRAMMATICAL, CONTEXTUAL, or LINGUISTICAL clauses, between the events of the Olivet discourse, that demonstrate clear and explicit time gaps of thousands of years - if I’m wrong, show me one.

As to the antecedents to “all these things” in Matthew 24:34, your argument relies on the over harmonization fallacy and just plain improper exegesis - by applying Luke 21:36. proper exegesis starts with the passage in its own context PRIOR to fitting it in with a broader systemic theology. Interpreting any passage first through a systemic theological framework, and then its own context is an exegetical fallacy - it allows to make the Bible say whatever we want, instead of what the author was trying to say - like how a premil will argue Matthew 24:1-3 refers to a 3rd temple.

The antecedents of “all these things” in Matthew 24:34 - are all the events of the Olivet discourse in Matthew 24. There is nothing, GRAMMATICALLY, to argue that some are not and some are - that’s only based on framework.

The antecedents to “all these things” in Luke 21:32 and 36, are all the events of the Olivet discourse in Luke 21. There is nothing, GRAMMATICALLY, to argue that some are not and some are - that’s only based on framework.

To argue that the antecedents to “all these things” IN Luke 21 must include all the antecedents in Matthew 24 partakes in the over harmonization fallacy which is driven by your systematic theology - it’s just bad exegesis. your ignoring the intent of the author to support your framework.

Say what? I wrote things according to the understanding I had of what you said. I didn't believe that I misunderstood what you said or else I would have asked for clarification

But, no spiritual discernment from the Holy Spirit is necessary to understand the Olivet Discourse? Just everything except for that?

There you go with more assumptions again……

Of course I pray for guidance from the spirit on the olivet discourse, which I believe has led me to the path I am on now. However, does that mean that the spirit is not leading the premil, who is also praying for discernment, to understand the olivet discourse about a 3rd rebuilt temple? does that also mean the spirit is not leading you, who too prays for discernment, to insert gaps into the olivet discourse?

Who gets to determine which one of us the spirit is correctly leading?

 

[claninja]

He did not and there is proof. His disciples all were murdered except John, who died naturally. They were the first ones of the NT bride and NONE of them were "gathered" by Christ in any sense the scriptures speak of. AD70 is deception.

And I could subjectively say dispensational premil is a deception, but that’s just a poor argument.

Perhaps you would like the following diagram which highlights that there where ten descendant generation born in Egypt in Ephraim's line and not the assumed four generation that you have accepted as being born in Egypt.

View attachment 64380

It is marvellous what can be found from just reading the scriptures. The provided genealogies in the scriptures provide a wealth of information when actually read instead of the written commentaries of mere men.

Which descendant of ephraim was the first be enslaved? The prophecy is four generations/ 400 years in bondage in Egypt , not four generations born in Egypt

 

[claninja]

Excellent point. No Christian's were raptured when Jerusalem was sacked by Rome in 70 ad
That and many other facts are clear to an unencumbered mind. Honestly they are deluded and hardened who say differently. But so far nothing changes their minds. That takes a revelation to them from God. As is always the case involving the things of the Spirit. There is an ongoing spiritual warfare

No Christians were gathered into heaven within Jesus’ first century generation?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

My argument isn’t that Christ returned in 70ad. My argument is that Christ came on the clouds WITHIN the first century generation. That being said, Of course there are zero inspired scriptures, written post the first century generation of Jesus, that claim Christ had already come on the clouds - you are asking for something that doesn’t exist.

In the same way, there are zero scriptures that that clearly and explicitly argue that Christ will NOT come on the clouds within Jesus’ first century audience. 1 Thessalonians 4, written in the 50s, and acts 1, are not evidence of the belief that Christ would not come in the clouds within Jesus’ first century audience. Jesus said “this generation will not pass away until all these things occur”. From an audience relevance standpoint (all the NT books written by someone WITHIN Jesus’ generation - so from their writing viewpoint), there is absolutely no contradiction in their writings about the belief that Christ would come on the clouds in the first century. The contradiction is imposed by your framework.

As to the olivet discourse - you still have demonstrated ZERO GRAMMATICAL evidence for your subjective insertion of multi thousand year gaps between the events you deem fit. Your only argument is that Christ didn’t come on the clouds within Jesus’ generation, according to YOUR framework, therefore your negotiation with the text is to insert these arbitrary gaps, regardless of syntax and grammar. That’s NOT a rebuttal to my argument. My argument is that there are zero GRAMMATICAL, CONTEXTUAL, or LINGUISTICAL clauses, between the events of the Olivet discourse, that demonstrate clear and explicit time gaps of thousands of years - if I’m wrong, show me one.

As to the antecedents to “all these things” in Matthew 24:34, your argument relies on the over harmonization fallacy and just plain improper exegesis - by applying Luke 21:36. proper exegesis starts with the passage in its own context PRIOR to fitting it in with a broader systemic theology. Interpreting any passage first through a systemic theological framework, and then its own context is an exegetical fallacy - it allows to make the Bible say whatever we want, instead of what the author was trying to say - like how a premil will argue Matthew 24:1-3 refers to a 3rd temple.

The antecedents of “all these things” in Matthew 24:34 - are all the events of the Olivet discourse in Matthew 24. There is nothing, GRAMMATICALLY, to argue that some are not and some are - that’s only based on framework.

The antecedents to “all these things” in Luke 21:32 and 36, are all the events of the Olivet discourse in Luke 21. There is nothing, GRAMMATICALLY, to argue that some are not and some are - that’s only based on framework.

To argue that the antecedents to “all these things” IN Luke 21 must include all the antecedents in Matthew 24 partakes in the over harmonization fallacy which is driven by your systematic theology - it’s just bad exegesis. your ignoring the intent of the author to support your framework.

I'm done with this. Your claims of bad exegesis on my part are ludicrous. Your exegesis is HORRIBLE because you do not take ALL of scripture into account when interpreting the Olivet Discourse, which is very unwise on your part.

There you go with more assumptions again……

Of course I pray for guidance from the spirit on the olivet discourse, which I believe has led me to the path I am on now. However, does that mean that the spirit is not leading the premil, who is also praying for discernment, to understand the olivet discourse about a 3rd rebuilt temple? does that also mean the spirit is not leading you, who too prays for discernment, to insert gaps into the olivet discourse?

Who gets to determine which one of us the spirit is correctly leading?

That question has nothing to do with my point. I was simply wanting to know if spiritual discernment plays any part in how you interpret scripture or whether you base it all only on your nerdy, ridiculous man-made grammar, contextual and linguistic rules?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No Christians were gathered into heaven within Jesus’ first century generation?

It's not talking about an ongoing gathering, it's talking about the elect being gathered when Jesus comes, just like Paul wrote about in 1 Thesslonians 4:14-17.. You try to twist the text to fit your false preterist doctrine. You have some gall trying to tell other people they are using bad exegesis when your own exegesis is just terrible and completely biased.

 

[Davidpt]

GRAMMATICALLY it does. According to your subjective frame work it doesn't.

I agree with you here. Except I see this causing a problem with your view since you have to include this--until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled--before 'this generation' meant can pass away. Therefore, it puzzles me as to why you even admit GRAMMATICALLY it does, then contradict your view in light of Luke 21:24? In my mind it is absurd to think we are no longer in the times of the Gentiles. If there are only Jews and Gentiles, and if the times of the Gentiles have already been fulfilled, logically that can only mean we are in the times of the Jews and have been in those times ever since.

Is that what Preterists think? That for the past 2000 years through now, we have been in the times of the Jews? After all, one can't have it both ways. One can't insist the times of the Gentiles was already fulfilled 2000 years ago, while insisting we are still in the times of the Gentiles as we speak. One can't have this generation passing away without first having the times of the Gentiles fulfilled entirely.

 

[Jay Ross]

Let us consider the scriptures first and the three prophetic words given in Genesis 15:12-16: -

Genesis 15:12-16: - 12 Now when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and behold, horror and great darkness fell upon him.​

God's first prophetic words​

13 Then He said to Abram: “Know certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them four hundred years. 14 And also the nation whom they serve I will judge; afterward they shall come out with great possessions.​

God's second prophetic words​

15 Now as for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried at a good old age.​

God's third prophetic words​

16 But in the fourth generation they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.”​

Now it is my opinion that the first and third prophetic words deal with very different circumstances and that commentators of these verse have to be able to make sense of the duration of the "in the fourth generation/age" deliberately linked the first and the third prophetic words which then meant that the understanding of the third prophetic word in this passage then became lost. It is my view that that the Third Prophetic Word was fulfilled in 1948 AD when some of Abraham's descendant returned to the land of Canaan in their own strength.

Which descendant of Ephraim was the first to be enslaved? The prophecy is four generations/ 400 years in bondage in Egypt, not four generations born in Egypt

What we know from the scriptures is that at the end of the second year of the famine, Jacob's son returned to Egypt to get more grain. After Joseph revealed himself to his brothers Jacob brought all of family and his working company of herdsmen and their families etc. with him down to Egypt. All that we are told is that Jacob was 130 years old when he first met the Pharoh. We are not given any other information concerning the ages of his sons when they travelled down to Egypt.

From my study of the Book of Genesis, I have concluded that Joseph was probably around 55-56 years of age when Jacob entered Egypt with his other sons.

In the Book of Exodus, we are told that, the nation of Israel lived in Egypt for 430 years. In Genesis 50:22-23 we are told this

Genesis 50:22-23: - 22 So Joseph dwelt in Egypt, he and his father's household. And Joseph lived one hundred and ten years. 23 Joseph saw Ephraim's children to the third generation. The children of Machir, the son of Manasseh, were also brought up on Joseph's knees.​

Then in Exodus 1:8-14 we are told this: -

Exodus 1:8-14: - 8 Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph. 9 And he said to his people, "Look, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we; 10 come, let us deal shrewdly with them, lest they multiply, and it happen, in the event of war, that they also join our enemies and fight against us, and so go up out of the land." 11 Therefore they set taskmasters over them to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh supply cities, Pithom and Raamses. 12 But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew. And they were in dread of the children of Israel. 13 So the Egyptians made the children of Israel serve with rigor. 14 And they made their lives bitter with hard bondage — in mortar, in brick, and in all manner of service in the field. All their service in which they made them serve was with rigor.​

Which could indicate that after around 80 years that the nation of Israel had lived in Egypt, the Egyptians began to oppress them with rigorous tasks and work. So, to try and attempt to answer your question from the silence of the scriptures, it was probably the fourth descendant generation of Ephraim's descendant that began to feel the oppression of slavery imposed by the Egyptians.

Now unless you have evidence that can positively identify the descendant generation in Ephraim's line this conversation between us is ended.

 

[ewq1938]

And I could subjectively say dispensational premil is a deception, but that’s just a poor argument.

And red herrings are poor responses to evidence that Preterism is false ie: the events of the OD were not fulfilled in the first century.

 

[claninja]

I'm done with this. Your claims of bad exegesis on my part are ludicrous. Your exegesis is HORRIBLE because you do not take ALL of scripture into account when interpreting the Olivet Discourse, which is very unwise on your part.

That’s simply not true, I do take all other scripture into consideration, but in proper order. Proper exegesis begins with understanding a text on its own terms—its context, grammar, syntax, audience relevance, linguistics, and historical setting. Only after that should we test how it fits within a broader theological framework. Reversing that process—starting with a systemic framework and forcing the text to conform to it—is not exegesis; it’s literally the definition of eisegesis.

That question has nothing to do with my point. I was simply wanting to know if spiritual discernment plays any part in how you interpret scripture or whether you base it all only on your nerdy, ridiculous man-made grammar, contextual and linguistic rules?

You do realize that grammatical rules are simply the basic tools we use to understand and communicate language, right? They’re not “my rules”—they’re the foundational structure of how reading and writing work. In order to understand any text, biblical or not, we have to know what words mean and how they function in sentences and paragraphs. This is not some advanced or obscure or “nerdy” method—it’s the same basic grammar taught in school from elementary through high school. Without grammar, we can’t make sense of meaning in any consistent or reliable way.

Without any “nerdy” man made tools of translation, grammar, syntax, linguistics, or context, can you read and understand the following?

“καὶ ἐὰν ἔχω προφητείαν καὶ εἰδῶ τὰ μυστήρια πάντα καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γνῶσιν, ⸄καὶ ἐὰν⸅ ἔχω πᾶσαν τὴν πίστιν ὥστε ὄρη μεθιστάναι, ἀγάπην δὲ μὴ ἔχω, οὐθέν εἰμι.”

It's not talking about an ongoing gathering, it's talking about the elect being gathered when Jesus comes, just like Paul wrote about in 1 Thesslonians 4:14-17.. You try to twist the text to fit your false preterist doctrine. You have some gall trying to tell other people they are using bad exegesis when your own exegesis is just terrible and completely biased.

I believe the gathering of the elect by the angels from the four winds in Matthew 24:31 is grammatically included, along with the destruction of Jerusalem, in the phrase “all these things” of verse 34. That means it falls within the same generational time frame as the destruction of Jerusalem.

Additionally, I understand the gathering in the same thematic framework as Matthew 22:7–10, where—after the city is destroyed—the servants (a clear parallel to the angels) gather both good and bad into the wedding hall. This fits the narrative structure and audience expectation without needing to force an arbitrary, multi-thousand-year delay between events.

 

[claninja]

And red herrings are poor responses to evidence that Preterism is false ie: the events of the OD were not fulfilled in the first century.

You stated “70ad is deception”. Pointing out that subjectively calling it deception is not a red herring. I could easily subjectively say dispensational premil is deception for claiming the events of the OD did not occur in the first century, despite it being evidenced by the destruction of temple.

 

[claninja]

Let us consider the scriptures first and the three prophetic words given in Genesis 15:12-16: -

​

Genesis 15:12-16: - 12 Now when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and behold, horror and great darkness fell upon him.​

​

God's first prophetic words​

​

13 Then He said to Abram: “Know certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them four hundred years. 14 And also the nation whom they serve I will judge; afterward they shall come out with great possessions.​

​

God's second prophetic words​

15 Now as for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried at a good old age.​

​

God's third prophetic words​

16 But in the fourth generation they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.”​

Now it is my opinion that the first and third prophetic words deal with very different circumstances and that commentators of these verse have to be able to make sense of the duration of the "in the fourth generation/age" deliberately linked the first and the third prophetic words which then meant that the understanding of the third prophetic word in this passage then became lost. It is my view that that the Third Prophetic Word was fulfilled in 1948 AD when some of Abraham's descendant returned to the land of Canaan in their own strength.



What we know from the scriptures is that at the end of the second year of the famine, Jacob's son returned to Egypt to get more grain. After Joseph revealed himself to his brothers Jacob brought all of family and his working company of herdsmen and their families etc. with him down to Egypt. All that we are told is that Jacob was 130 years old when he first met the Pharoh. We are not given any other information concerning the ages of his sons when they travelled down to Egypt.

From my study of the Book of Genesis, I have concluded that Joseph was probably around 55-56 years of age when Jacob entered Egypt with his other sons.

In the Book of Exodus, we are told that, the nation of Israel lived in Egypt for 430 years. In Genesis 50:22-23 we are told this

Genesis 50:22-23: - 22 So Joseph dwelt in Egypt, he and his father's household. And Joseph lived one hundred and ten years. 23 Joseph saw Ephraim's children to the third generation. The children of Machir, the son of Manasseh, were also brought up on Joseph's knees.​

Then in Exodus 1:8-14 we are told this: -

​

Exodus 1:8-14: - 8 Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph. 9 And he said to his people, "Look, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we; 10 come, let us deal shrewdly with them, lest they multiply, and it happen, in the event of war, that they also join our enemies and fight against us, and so go up out of the land." 11 Therefore they set taskmasters over them to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh supply cities, Pithom and Raamses. 12 But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew. And they were in dread of the children of Israel. 13 So the Egyptians made the children of Israel serve with rigor. 14 And they made their lives bitter with hard bondage — in mortar, in brick, and in all manner of service in the field. All their service in which they made them serve was with rigor.​

Which could indicate that after around 80 years that the nation of Israel had lived in Egypt, the Egyptians began to oppress them with rigorous tasks and work. So, to try and attempt to answer your question from the silence of the scriptures, it was probably the fourth descendant generation of Ephraim's descendant that began to feel the oppression of slavery imposed by the Egyptians.

Now unless you have evidence that can positively identify the descendant generation in Ephraim's line this conversation between us is ended.

Your entire premise falls apart if you can’t demonstrate which specific descendant of ephraim first went into slavery in Egypt.

 

[Jay Ross]

Now unless you have evidence that can positively identify the descendant generation in Ephraim's line this conversation between us is ended

Your entire premise falls apart if you can’t demonstrate which specific descendant of Ephraim first went into slavery in Egypt.

My question is how important is it for me to satisfy your demands to identify which specific descendant of Ephraim first went into slavery in Egypt.

From my perspective, it is not necessary to identify which descendant of Ephraim's began to be oppressed by the Egyptians. It makes no chronological difference to our understanding of God's timeline for the unfolding history of Israel.

My listing of the ten descendant generation in Ephraim's line destroys your understanding that there were only four descendant Israeli generations born in Egypt over the full 430 years that Israel remained in Egypt.

Now unless you can demonstrate that the four descendant generations is important to the storyline of Israel then as far as I am concerned, this conversation cannot go any further.

Goodbye

 

[ewq1938]

You stated “70ad is deception”.

After providing evidence, which was ignored. The fact that the disciples were not gathered by angels proves none of the OD events happened in AD70 making the whole AD70 argument deception.

 

[claninja]

After providing evidence, which was ignored. The fact that the disciples were not gathered by angels proves none of the OD events happened in AD70 making the whole AD70 argument deception.

You’re making a subjective interpretational claim, not providing “evidence”. The fact that the disciples were not “gathered” according to your premillennial framework doesn’t objectively prove that AD 70 was not a fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse, nor does it justify labeling it “deception”.

What is objective is that the temple and the city were indeed destroyed within Jesus’ first-century audience, just as he prophesied in the OD.

As for the gathering of the elect by the angels in Matthew 24:31, I interpret it in continuity with the thematic arc of Matthew 22:7–10—where, after the city’s destruction, both the good and bad are gathered by the king’s servants into the wedding feast.