Interesting preterist argument

[ewq1938]

So far, every generation, post Jesus’ first century generation, that has claimed “they” are the last generation, based on their interpretive framework, has been wrong.

The parable of the fig tree is about recognizing the nearness of events, not identifying ethnic groups based on Jeremiah 24.

Yes but only nearness when they see the fig and all the other kinds of trees beginning to bud as they do in spring. It comes down to interpreting whether that happened and the generation saw all he events described, or whether no generation yet has seen them. Since the second coming and gathering of the elect by angels has not yet happened, we know no past generation was the generation spoken of.

 

[claninja]

Yes he gave an answer, but did not answer the first question.

i disagree. This is highly unlikely.

They did not say teh word for temple in their question. You are assuming that is what they meant. It is not an argument from silence to say Jesus did not speak of the temple being destroyed in the OD because he does not speak of it. It is not an event that happens alongside the other events.

An argument from silence is a conclusion drawn from the absence of evidence. You are arguing Jesus didn’t answer question 1 because his response doesn’t mention the specific word temple or specific phrase “temple destruction”. That’s literally an argument from silence. would you also consistently argue that the OD is not about the end of the age because Jesus didn’t specifically mention the phrase end of the age in the OD? Or are you picking and choosing which things Jesus answered in the OD in order to support your framework?

Grammatically, The antecedent to “when will all these things happen” in Matthew 24:3 is found in vs 1-2 : not one stone will be upon another in regards to the temple complex. Grammatically and linguistically, it’s pretty clear the disciples asked about timing of the destruction of the temple.

In response to the disciples’question about “when” will the destruction of the temple be, jesus mentions that there would be an abomination of desolation, prophesied by Daniel, in the “holy place”. The “holy place”, linguistically, being another term for the temple as defined by thayer’s lexicon -

• a. of things which on account of some connection with God possess a certain distinction and claim to reverence, as places sacred to God which are not to be profaned, Acts 7:33; τόπος ἅγιος the temple, Matthew 24:15

Additionally, Jesus does answer the timing - “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place”

Historically, the temple was destroyed within Jesus’ generation.

False. It is a fact he did not speak about it. It is eisegesis on your part to take something taught at the temple and force it into the OD, despite it not being discussed in that discourse.

It’s not a “fact” that he did not speak of the temple, any more than it its a fact he did not speak of the end of the age.

Do you believe vs 4-31 are about the end of the age, despite Jesus never mentioning the term “end of the age”. If you do, your argument is inconsistent, which demonstrates your negotiation with the context is selective in order to uphold your framework - text book eisegesis.

 

[ewq1938]

An argument from silence is a conclusion drawn from the absence of evidence. You are arguing Jesus didn’t answer question 1 because his response doesn’t mention the specific word temple or specific phrase “temple destruction”. That’s literally an argument from silence. would you also consistently argue that the OD is not about the end of the age because Jesus didn’t specifically mention the phrase end of the age in the OD? Or are you picking and choosing which things Jesus answered in the OD in order to support your framework?

An AFS would be someone claiming the Trinity is false because the bible doesn't use that word. An AFS is not an example of someone not speaking about a certain event. Christ predicted the destruction of the temple AT THE TEMPLE, but does not continue to discuss it in the OD. It is not part of the OD because it is not part of those end times events.

You are the one using an AFS as I will expose at the end of this post.

Historically, the temple was destroyed within Jesus’ generation.

It was not one of the events listed as being seen by one generation. That generation didn't see any of the OD events, but some (not many) lived to the time the Romans destroyed the temple.

It’s not a “fact” that he did not speak of the temple, any more than it its a fact he did not speak of the end of the age.

It's a fact he did not speak of the destruction of the temple in any part of the discourse on the mount.

Do you believe vs 4-31 are about the end of the age, despite Jesus never mentioning the term “end of the age”.

LOL, you are the one employing the argument from silence with that exact set of words. Only the concept is needed, not any exact wording.

He spoke of the end of the age here:

Mat_24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
Mat_24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I don’t think the total destruction of the wicked in the Noah analogy goes beyond — or is any more ‘universal’ — than the hyperbolic warning that ‘no flesh would be saved’ if the days of the Great Tribulation weren’t cut short. Both are examples of apocalyptic exaggeration meant to emphasize severity, not literal global scope. Additionally, the point of the analogy seems to be more about suddenness, than global scope.

Wrong. In the past local event, Jesus was not using hyperbole. Literally no flesh would have been saved in Jerusalem in 70 AD if not for God's intervention. In the future global event of Christ's second coming no unbelievers will survive just as none survived the flood in Noah's day. That is not hyperbole. He said in relation to that event "heaven and earth will pass away" (Matt 24:35). We can see the same thing described in 2 Peter 3:10-12 where the heavens and the earth will be burned up when He returns. You have been duped by preterist false doctrine. It results in you denying clear, straightforward scripture.

 

[claninja]

An AFS would be someone claiming the Trinity is false because the bible doesn't use that word. An AFS is not an example of someone not speaking about a certain event. Christ predicted the destruction of the temple AT THE TEMPLE, but does not continue to discuss it in the OD. It is not part of the OD because it is not part of those end times events.

You are the one using an AFS as I will expose at the end of this post.

an argument from silence is a conclusion drawn from the absence of evidence.

Someone may conclude the trinity is false because there is no mention of trinity in the Bible. You are concluding Jesus did not answer question 1 because the word “temple” or similar phrase “temple destruction” is not present in his answer. Both are text book examples of an argument from silence.

verse 4 explicitly states “Jesus answered them”. Verse 4 does not explicitly indicate Jesus excluded one of their questions. You are drawing that conclusion based on the word “temple” or the subjective concept phrase “temple destruction” being absent from vs 5-34. That is a textbook argument from silence.

that being said, The temple is mentioned in the olivet discourse - Matthew 24:15 - “the holy place”. Linguistically, lexicons define this as the temple building in the context of Matthew 24. The abomination of desolation standing in the temple triggering everyone to flee Judea so as to avoid great tribulation isn’t concept enough for temple destruction?

Contextually, I disagree based on the fact that Jesus answered the disciples’ questions, one of which was a question about temple destruction.

LOL, you are the one employing the argument from silence with that exact set of words. Only the concept is needed, not any exact wording.

He spoke of the end of the age here:

Mat_24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
Mat_24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

You’re absolutely correct — I’m intentionally using an argument from silence regarding the phrase “end of the age.” I’m glad you recognize that, because I’m simply mirroring your logic.

The word “end” in verse 3 (sunteleia) is not the same Greek word used in verses 13 and 14 (telos). More importantly, the exact phrase “end of the age” appears nowhere in Matthew 24:4–34. Therefore, using your standard, we would have to conclude that the concept of the end of the age is not taught in those verses.

Of course, you might say the “concept” is present — but that quickly becomes subjective. What you believe qualifies as the “concept” of the end of the age is no more definitive than what others believe qualifies as the “concept” of temple destruction. If you deny the first on that basis, you must deny the second as well,
Otherwise, your argument is arbitrary — you’re applying one standard of proof for your position, and a completely different standard when trying to dismiss mine. That’s special pleading, not sound exegesis.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

an argument from silence is a conclusion drawn from the absence of evidence.

Someone may conclude the trinity is false because there is no mention of trinity in the Bible. You are concluding Jesus did not answer question 1 because the word “temple” or similar phrase “temple destruction” is not present in his answer. Both are text book examples of an argument from silence.

verse 4 explicitly states “Jesus answered them”. Verse 4 does not explicitly indicate Jesus excluded one of their questions. You are drawing that conclusion based on the word “temple” or the subjective concept phrase “temple destruction” being absent from vs 5-34. That is a textbook argument from silence.

that being said, The temple is mentioned in the olivet discourse - Matthew 24:15 - “the holy place”. Linguistically, lexicons define this as the temple building in the context of Matthew 24. The abomination of desolation standing in the temple triggering everyone to flee Judea so as to avoid great tribulation isn’t concept enough for temple destruction?

Contextually, I disagree based on the fact that Jesus answered the disciples’ questions, one of which was a question about temple destruction.

I agree. And there's also Luke 21:20. Did Jesus really need to specifically mention the destruction of the temple buildings there in order to be referring to that? No. Obviously, the destruction and desolation of Jerusalem would include the temple buildings, so that goes without saying when it comes to Luke 21:20. Of course, Luke 21:20 is a parallel verse to Matthew 24:15. Luke worded it a bit differently simply because he was writing to a Gentile audience that would not have been familiar with the prophecy in Daniel. It obviously would not have made sense for him to tell the reader to understand something that they would not possibly have understood like the Jews who studied Daniel would.

 

[ewq1938]

an argument from silence is a conclusion drawn from the absence of evidence.

Someone may conclude the trinity is false because there is no mention of trinity in the Bible. You are concluding Jesus did not answer question 1 because the word “temple” or similar phrase “temple destruction” is not present in his answer.

That's false. I don't care about specific terms, just the concept. There is nothing in the OD about the temple being destroyed.

that being said, The temple is mentioned in the olivet discourse - Matthew 24:15

Yes and that is another fallacy, the strawman because no one denies the temple is mentioned. However, it is not mentioned to be destroyed but polluted which is different.

You’re absolutely correct — I’m intentionally using an argument from silence regarding the phrase “end of the age.” I’m glad you recognize that, because I’m simply mirroring your logic.

But it is not based on any of my logic. You use this as a strawman when I in fact never requited any certain words or terms. When I say the temple is not said to be destroyed in the ODF as it was in AD70, it is a factual statement devoid of any fallacies.