When Christ returns, we shall all be changed, including heaven and earth, actually all things are changed out for something better.

[HappyOma]

Amen, I agree.


I did quote chapter and verse for that passage. And yes I agree with the general context, but do you not agree also that we often need "ears to hear" what the Spirit is saying and "eyes to see"? God is not always confined and limited to the exact literal context with everything He wants to reveal and convey. There are things He hides in scripture, according to His will and wisdom. But I have a hunch you don't agree with these things, since you don't seem to know what I'm talking about with them (but please correct me if I'm wrong).


"Every" and "all" often means everything or all within a subset. You yourself maintain that these things were written to and about the Jews, which I agree with. Just that I also believe (subject to testing and correction if necessary) that there is another depth or layer where these scriptures are speaking first to the Jews, but also speak and apply afterwards to the Gentiles. I can't prove it to you, time will tell. But I don't think it can be proven false either. I'm certainly open to the Lord correcting me though. You know, it occurs to me that Jesus didn't go around proving the truth of what He was saying........people either had ears to hear and receive, or they didn't. Truth is like that.

"There are things He hides in scripture, according to His will and wisdom." Even if that is true, we must be careful to not risk creating things that aren't there.

Perhaps I don't understand. Please explain what you mean about the Gentiles and how the "scriptures are speaking first to the Jews, but also speak and apply afterwards to the Gentiles."

Did He not in that day make of the two (Jew and Gentile) one new man so that what was true of the one was true of the other? In the body of Christ, the true Israel of God, there is no longer Jew or Gentile. Are you saying that there are things even today that apply to Gentiles apart from the Jew? If so, what is the biblical justification for that?

 

[Scott Downey]

"There are things He hides in scripture, according to His will and wisdom." Even if that is true, we must be careful to not risk creating things that aren't there.

Perhaps I don't understand. Please explain what you mean about the Gentiles and how the "scriptures are speaking first to the Jews, but also speak and apply afterwards to the Gentiles."

Did He not in that day make of the two (Jew and Gentile) one new man so that what was true of the one was true of the other? In the body of Christ, the true Israel of God, there is no longer Jew or Gentile. Are you saying that there are things even today that apply to Gentiles apart from the Jew? If so, what is the biblical justification for that?

Revelation 1
7 Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen.

8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, [b]the Beginning and the End,” says the [c]Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

The above is Christ. The one who is still to come. Second coming is future, not past.

 

[Lizbeth]

"There are things He hides in scripture, according to His will and wisdom." Even if that is true, we must be careful to not risk creating things that aren't there.

Perhaps I don't understand. Please explain what you mean about the Gentiles and how the "scriptures are speaking first to the Jews, but also speak and apply afterwards to the Gentiles."

Did He not in that day make of the two (Jew and Gentile) one new man so that what was true of the one was true of the other? In the body of Christ, the true Israel of God, there is no longer Jew or Gentile. Are you saying that there are things even today that apply to Gentiles apart from the Jew? If so, what is the biblical justification for that?

I don't think I can explain it any more than I've already tried to. It's one of those things we need to "hear" or "see" by faith, as the Lord quickens it to us. I can only suggest to ask Him about it and keep it on a back burner for now. Like an old saying that some things can't be "taught", they must be "caught".

Romans 2:9 says there will be tribulation and anguish upon the soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first, then the Gentile. (It is speaking of judgment.)

 

[Scott Downey]

If Christ came back so long ago, 2000 years ago, why then this prophetic word from the Spirit, saying scoffers come in the last days saying where is the promise of His coming? We are much closer to the end than way back then, 2000 years closer to the LAST DAY, and the earth and heavens are still unchanged, that proves He has not yet come back.

And His coming means the fiery destruction of the earth and the heavens, along with the wicked, and unbelieving.

Therefore, any doctrine claiming Christ came back 2000 years ago is proven false.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2 Peter 3
Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), 2 that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of [a]us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior,

3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.

7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and [b]perdition of ungodly men.

8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward [c]us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

The Day of the Lord​

10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be [d]burned up. 11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

 

[Scott Downey]

And Peter pointing out Noah's flood as an example, shows that Christ's return is an event of worldwide destruction, just like Christ says, when He returns it is like the time of Noah and Lot.

1. Luke 17:26
   And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man:
   
   
2. Luke 17:27
   They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.

Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 24:37-39 - New King James Version

But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the...

www.biblegateway.com

​

37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.​

 

[rebuilder 454]

The Book of Revelaton was written PRIOR to A. D. 70. If you choose to take the late date, you still have the same TIME problem. Please point out the things that took place SHORTLY and were NEAR after A. D. 90 the fit the contents of the vision.

Nope.
That miscue is a major one by preterists.

I believe the Holy Spirit guided me to the date of Revelation.
It dramatically destroys preterism.
The following is copy/paste from google;
"1) Domitianic Dating (95-96 AD):
Many scholars, including those from the Christian Courier, believe the book was written towards the end of Domitian's reign. This is based on the writings of Irenaeus, an early church father, who stated that Revelation was written "almost in our own day, toward the end of the reign of Domitian,"

2) The early church historian Eusebius also mentioned that John was banished to the island of Patmos during the reign of Domitian.

3)Clement of Alexandria lived in Egypt in Africa. It goes without saying that he lived far away from Irenaeus who lived in Lyons, France. As an independent testimony, Clement states that John was released from exile after a certain “tyrant” had died. He writes:
“When on the death of the tyrant he removed from the island of Patmos to Ephesus, he used to go off, when requested, to the neighbouring districts of the Gentiles also, to appoint bishops in some places, to organize whole churches in others, in others again to appoint to an order some one of those who were indicated by the Spirit.”[50]
Eusebius understands the expression “the death of the tyrant” to refer to “the death of Domitian.”

4) Victorinus wrote our earliest surviving commentary on the book of Revelation (AD 304). In it, he affirms the Domitianic date. He writes,
“When John said these things he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the labor of the mines by Caesar Domitian. There, he saw the Apocalypse; and when grown old, he thought that he should at length receive his quittance by suffering, Domitian being killed, all his judgments were discharged. And John being dismissed from the mines, thus subsequently delivered the same Apocalypse which he had received from God.”[65]

This citation is straightforward. This means that our earliest known commentator held that John wrote Revelation under Domitian—not Nero."

This blows your entire doctrine out of the water.

A 2 MINUTE INVESTIGATION DESTROYING YEARS OF PRETERIST INVESTMENT.
God is good!

 

[WPM]

If Christ came back so long ago, 2000 years ago, why then this prophetic word from the Spirit, saying scoffers come in the last days saying where is the promise of His coming? We are much closer to the end than way back then, 2000 years closer to the LAST DAY, and the earth and heavens are still unchanged, that proves He has not yet come back.

And His coming means the fiery destruction of the earth and the heavens, along with the wicked, and unbelieving.

Therefore, any doctrine claiming Christ came back 2000 years ago is proven false.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2 Peter 3
Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), 2 that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of [a]us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior,

3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.

7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and [b]perdition of ungodly men.

8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward [c]us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

The Day of the Lord​

10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be [d]burned up. 11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

Agreed! 2 Peter 3:3-13 couldn't be clearer: “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming [Gr. parousia]? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack (or slow) concerning his promise, as some men count slackness (slowness); but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away [Gr. parerchomai]: with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.”

What is the focus here (and that of the rest of the New Testament)? Is it Titus or Jesus? What is the promise? Is it AD70 or the final climactic return of Christ, which includes the general resurrection/judgment of the living and the dead and the introduction of the new perfect eternal state?

• Unquestionably, the focus of this message is directed to the end-time-cynics who question God.
• These fools question God keeping His “promise.” What promise? It is “the promise of his coming.”
• The scorn and derision of these foolish last days scoffers and mockers are directed specifically towards the reality and occurrence of Christ’s future coming.
• It is not in any way speaking of Jewish cynics who are mocking the reality of AD70. It is not concentrated upon a supposed group of ‘millennial scoffers’ 1,000 years later. If this is supposed to be a collection of ‘millennial scoffers’ 1,000 years after the second coming, why would they be saying, “Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation”? Such a notion is a complete absurdity as Christ’s coming (or parousia) is long past.
• This text shows us that today is the only day of salvation. Peter responds to the mockers scoffing at the apparent delay in Christ's return: “the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation” (2 Peter 3:15). Romans 2:4 reaffirms that salvation is limited to this side of the second coming.
• The actual wrath described by the Holy Spirit comes suddenly and unexpectedly upon these foolish last days scoffers and mockers. There is no escape. They are the recipients of total destruction.
• We also see in this reading that “the day of the Lord will arrive (or heko) as a thief in the night; in the which (en heé)” or literally translated “in which” (the word “the” being absent from the original). The detail described arrives with Jesus.
• What happens to creation when Jesus arrives? 1. The heavens shall pass away / perish with a great noise. 2. The elements shall be ‘loosed by being set on fire’, 3. The earth shall be ‘burned up utterly / consumed wholly. 4. The works that are within the earth shall be ‘burned up utterly / consumed wholly. The Premillennialist claims to be a literalist, so there is no spiritualization that can explain this away. It is water-tight.
• The description of the destruction could not be more comprehensive. It is undoubtedly the end. It involves wholesale and unavoidable annihilation for the wicked. It embraces the full gamut of fallen creation.
• What is this replaced with? A future millennium filled with sin and sinners, crying and dying? No. The Holy Spirit tells us that it the “new heavens and a new earth” that follows Christ’s return.
• The arrival of the “new heavens and a new earth” are here significantly connected to “his promise.”
• The Holy Spirit then assures the last days elect that their lot is not wrath or destruction. They experience the new heavens and new earth at His appearing.

 

[HappyOma]

Revelation 1
7 Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen.

8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, [b]the Beginning and the End,” says the [c]Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

The above is Christ. The one who is still to come. Second coming is future, not past.

I will assume that you know that you are combining two verses: Revelation 4:8 and 22:13. "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty who was and is and is to come" (4:8) and "I am the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end" (22:13).

Do you recall what John was shown? He was shown those things which were to SHORTLY take place; the time was NEAR (Rev. 1:1, 3; 22:6, 10). John was told to NOT seal up the vision because the time was NEAR. The "is to come" refers to that time frame. In other words, the "four living creatures" spoke of His soon coming in THAT day. Notice that Daniel was told TO seal up the vision because it was far off! It was fulfilled just hundreds of years later. John was told to NOT seal up the vision because it was NEAR. Hundreds of years are not FAR OFF if thousands of years and counting are NEAR.

John was told to NOT seal up the vision because it described those things which were to SHORTLY take place--in his own day.

After Jesus described Himself as the Alpha and Omega, He said, "Surely, I am coming SOON" (22:20). Some translations render this time word as "quickly." That is of no consequence. A simple study of that word (tachos) reveals that i always has the connotations of SOON. Show me an exception.

Luke 18:8, (quickly); Acts 12:7 (Quick); Acts 22:18 (immediately); Acts 25:4 (soon); Romans 16:20 (soon); 1 Timothy 3:14 (soon); Revelation 1:1 (soon); Revelation 22:6 (soon).

Even in passages rendered as "quickly" or "quick," the point is not the fastness of movement but the time of the movement--SOON, SHORTLY. It is not accurate to say that when Jesus comes, He will come with speediness--as though the movement matters. That is never a nuance of the word tachos.

A related word, tachys (13 times)--meaning soon (6x), quickly (3x), hurried ((1x), and in the next moment (1x). In the THREE passages in which it is rendered as "quickly," it has NOTHING to do with the speed of movement but with a matter of urgency and immediacy.

Christ is NOT "still to come." The Scriptures nowhere teach that.

 

[rebuilder 454]

I will assume that you know that you are combining two verses: Revelation 4:8 and 22:13. "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty who was and is and is to come" (4:8) and "I am the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end" (22:13).

Do you recall what John was shown? He was shown those things which were to SHORTLY take place; the time was NEAR (Rev. 1:1, 3; 22:6, 10). John was told to NOT seal up the vision because the time was NEAR. The "is to come" refers to that time frame. In other words, the "four living creatures" spoke of His soon coming in THAT day. Notice that Daniel was told TO seal up the vision because it was far off! It was fulfilled just hundreds of years later. John was told to NOT seal up the vision because it was NEAR. Hundreds of years are not FAR OFF if thousands of years and counting are NEAR.

John was told to NOT seal up the vision because it described those things which were to SHORTLY take place--in his own day.

After Jesus described Himself as the Alpha and Omega, He said, "Surely, I am coming SOON" (22:20). Some translations render this time word as "quickly." That is of no consequence. A simple study of that word (tachos) reveals that i always has the connotations of SOON. Show me an exception.

Luke 18:8, (quickly); Acts 12:7 (Quick); Acts 22:18 (immediately); Acts 25:4 (soon); Romans 16:20 (soon); 1 Timothy 3:14 (soon); Revelation 1:1 (soon); Revelation 22:6 (soon).

Even in passages rendered as "quickly" or "quick," the point is not the fastness of movement but the time of the movement--SOON, SHORTLY. It is not accurate to say that when Jesus comes, He will come with speediness--as though the movement matters. That is never a nuance of the word tachos.

A related word, tachys (13 times)--meaning soon (6x), quickly (3x), hurried ((1x), and in the next moment (1x). In the THREE passages in which it is rendered as "quickly," it has NOTHING to do with the speed of movement but with a matter of urgency and immediacy.

Christ is NOT "still to come." The Scriptures nowhere teach that.

The bible ends with "come Lord Jesus"

Not..."you came 2000 yrs ago and we missed it"

 

[HappyOma]

I don't think I can explain it any more than I've already tried to. It's one of those things we need to "hear" or "see" by faith, as the Lord quickens it to us. I can only suggest to ask Him about it and keep it on a back burner for now. Like an old saying that some things can't be "taught", they must be "caught".

Romans 2:9 says there will be tribulation and anguish upon the soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first, then the Gentile. (It is speaking of judgment.)

The words speak for themselves, Lizbeth. We "hear" and "see" by faith through diligent study of His Word. We are called to do so and be active about it. I have asked Him about it, Lizbeth, and THEN I studied itfor 5 decades! Actions are CAUGHT; wisdom and knowledge are TAUGHT and LEARNED We are called to seek His wisdom and then to "rightly divide the Word of Truth" (2 Tim. 2;15). We don't just sit around and wait for the Holy Spirit to do the work for us. Guides guide while the person they guide WORKS..

Romans chapter 2 begins with "therefore." Whenever you see that, you must back up to find out what the "therefore" is there for. Paul has just outlined in chapter 1 that the "just shall live by faith" (1:17) and explained God's wrath against all unrighteousness. He is dealing with those who pass judgment upon others. Why? Because in chapter one, he pointed out that some of them were not only doing the very things God condemned (chapter 1) but were also taking pleasure in others who did them. THEY had "hard" and "impenitant" hearts. Because of that, THEY were storing up for THEMSELVES on the DAY OF JUDGMENT, wrath for themselves--the day when God's "righteous judgment" would be revealed. THIS was to happen to THEM. These are actual, real people of that day who were to see this judgment. Paul is not speaking in generalit of all people throughout alal time. His statement of the "Jew first and also the Gentiles" gives no future-to-us time frame. The context is clearly dealing with those of Paul's own day. This was a time when the Gospel was first being given to the Gentiles. That is why Paul still speaks of them as separate peoples. The making of the two into ONE NEW MAN is outlined in the book of Galatians--written after the book of Romans.

Again, there is given NO time frame between a judgment upon the Jews and then a long, subsequent judging of the Gentiles. You are imposing that upon the text to fit your paradigm.

Please study verses in context, Lizbeth. That is how the Holy Spirt with help you "see" and "hear."

 

[Lizbeth]

The words speak for themselves, Lizbeth. We "hear" and "see" by faith through diligent study of His Word. We are called to do so and be active about it. I have asked Him about it, Lizbeth, and THEN I studied itfor 5 decades! Actions are CAUGHT; wisdom and knowledge are TAUGHT and LEARNED We are called to seek His wisdom and then to "rightly divide the Word of Truth" (2 Tim. 2;15). We don't just sit around and wait for the Holy Spirit to do the work for us. Guides guide while the person they guide WORKS..

Romans chapter 2 begins with "therefore." Whenever you see that, you must back up to find out what the "therefore" is there for. Paul has just outlined in chapter 1 that the "just shall live by faith" (1:17) and explained God's wrath against all unrighteousness. He is dealing with those who pass judgment upon others. Why? Because in chapter one, he pointed out that some of them were not only doing the very things God condemned (chapter 1) but were also taking pleasure in others who did them. THEY had "hard" and "impenitant" hearts. Because of that, THEY were storing up for THEMSELVES on the DAY OF JUDGMENT, wrath for themselves--the day when God's "righteous judgment" would be revealed. THIS was to happen to THEM. These are actual, real people of that day who were to see this judgment. Paul is not speaking in generalit of all people throughout alal time. His statement of the "Jew first and also the Gentiles" gives no future-to-us time frame. The context is clearly dealing with those of Paul's own day. This was a time when the Gospel was first being given to the Gentiles. That is why Paul still speaks of them as separate peoples. The making of the two into ONE NEW MAN is outlined in the book of Galatians--written after the book of Romans.

Again, there is given NO time frame between a judgment upon the Jews and then a long, subsequent judging of the Gentiles. You are imposing that upon the text to fit your paradigm.

Please study verses in context, Lizbeth. That is how the Holy Spirt with help you "see" and "hear."

Wisdom, knowledge and understanding is given as a gift to those who seek it and are humble enough to realize it comes from God, and that we have it not of ourselves. We can "study" the bible til the cows come home and still be blind to what it is saying.

God says we are not to lean on our own understanding. The flesh profits nothing. God wants us to rely on Him, His Spirit, not on ourselves.


Ecc 12:12

And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh. (the flesh profits nothing)


Mar 4:11-12

And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.


Luk 10:21

At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.


Jas 1:5-6

If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him.
But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind.

Jhn 5:39-41

“You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.
“But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.
“I do not receive honor from men.

 

[HappyOma]

Nope.
That miscue is a major one by preterists.

I believe the Holy Spirit guided me to the date of Revelation.
It dramatically destroys preterism.
The following is copy/paste from google;
"1) Domitianic Dating (95-96 AD):
Many scholars, including those from the Christian Courier, believe the book was written towards the end of Domitian's reign. This is based on the writings of Irenaeus, an early church father, who stated that Revelation was written "almost in our own day, toward the end of the reign of Domitian,"

2) The early church historian Eusebius also mentioned that John was banished to the island of Patmos during the reign of Domitian.

3)Clement of Alexandria lived in Egypt in Africa. It goes without saying that he lived far away from Irenaeus who lived in Lyons, France. As an independent testimony, Clement states that John was released from exile after a certain “tyrant” had died. He writes:
“When on the death of the tyrant he removed from the island of Patmos to Ephesus, he used to go off, when requested, to the neighbouring districts of the Gentiles also, to appoint bishops in some places, to organize whole churches in others, in others again to appoint to an order some one of those who were indicated by the Spirit.”[50]
Eusebius understands the expression “the death of the tyrant” to refer to “the death of Domitian.”

4) Victorinus wrote our earliest surviving commentary on the book of Revelation (AD 304). In it, he affirms the Domitianic date. He writes,
“When John said these things he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the labor of the mines by Caesar Domitian. There, he saw the Apocalypse; and when grown old, he thought that he should at length receive his quittance by suffering, Domitian being killed, all his judgments were discharged. And John being dismissed from the mines, thus subsequently delivered the same Apocalypse which he had received from God.”[65]

This citation is straightforward. This means that our earliest known commentator held that John wrote Revelation under Domitian—not Nero."

This blows your entire doctrine out of the water.

A 2 MINUTE INVESTIGATION DESTROYING YEARS OF PRETERIST INVESTMENT.
God is good!

"I believe the Holy Spirit guided me to the date of Revelation." Did He really? Why would He lead you to the wrong date? Hmmm.

"This blows your entire doctrine out of the water."

Before I begin my refute of your false assertions, let me tell you what "blows" you late-date advocates out of the water. You STILL MUST deal with the timing. What happened SHORTLY and what was NEAR in A. D. 96? John was shown those things which were to SHORTLY take place; the time was NEAR (Rev. 1:1, 3; 22:6, 10). The timing problem does not disappear with your false late date--even though you try to ignore it.

Let's look at the FACTS--external and internal.

Let's first consider the EXTERNAL evidence you heavily and unjustifiably use to support an early date.

You cite the statement by Irenaeus--a statement considered to be AMGIBUOUS and unclear by many notable men. Here's what he wrote:

"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For this was seen not very long time since, but almost in our day, toward the end of Domitian's reign."

The ambiguity comes in the antecedent of "that which was seen." What is the subject of this verb? Is it "him who saw the Apocalypse" (i.e., John) or the "Apocalypse" itself? First of all, we must consider that the original work of Irenaeus is no longer extant. Everything we have are translations--first mostly into ancient Latin. Of this, well-respected Church historian, John Laurence von Mosheim (History of Christianity in the First Three Centuries) wrote that Irenaeus' writings "have reached us merely through the medium of a wrtechedly barbarous and obscure Latin translation." Philip Schaff agreed (History of the Christian Church, 1:75) that the translation utilized "barbarous Latin." Those who translated Irenaeus added that the Latin version is "itself of the most barbarous character" (Roberts and Rambaut).

Also, there are notable scholars who view JOHN to be the subject of the verb, so your insinuation that everyone agrees that it is the Apocalyps is erroneous. Eusebius himself quoted Irenaeus, perhaps his primary source for his belief in a late date. So, his assumptions are based on an ambiguous statement scholars argue over. Not very decisive. There are noted fathers and others who placed John's banishment under the regin of Nero (I can provide them if you like--e.g., Jerome). It is also known that Irenaeus himself was confused about the reign he was referring to. Was it Domitian's reign (AD 81-96) or Trajan's reign (98-117). In one place he referred to the "end of Domitian's reign." In another he stated that John "continued with the Elders till the time of Trajan."`

What's the issue with all of this? The antecedent to what or who was seen is unclear and should not be used as some "slam dunk" against the early date. There is a strong possibility that Irenaeus stated that it was JOHN who was seen at the end of Domitian's reign and NOT the apacalypse. Perhaps you should do more than a "2-minute investigation" before boldly and groundlessly claiming that the fallible Church Fathers, who relied heavily on Irenaeus' very AMGIBUOUS statement, "blow" the truths of preterism "out of the water."

But let's get into the most significant proof of the early date: the Bible itself; the INTERNAL evidence.

Yes, God is good.

To be continued (Internal Evidence)

 

[HappyOma]

The bible ends with "come Lord Jesus"

Not..."you came 2000 yrs ago and we missed it"

Do you even consider ANYTHING I post? The Bible ends with "Behold, I am coming soon. Even so, come Lord Jesus." Did you miss the previous statement on purpose? John was shown those things which were to SHORTLY take place; the time was NEAR. You stubbornly ignore that. That SHORTLY and NEAR included HIS COMING!

SHORTLY and NEAR mean SHORTLY and NEAR--not 2000 years later! Why do you resist truth?

 

[HappyOma]

Wisdom, knowledge and understanding is given as a gift to those who seek it and are humble enough to realize it comes from God, and that we have it not of ourselves. We can "study" the bible til the cows come home and still be blind to what it is saying.

God says we are not to lean on our own understanding. The flesh profits nothing. God wants us to rely on Him, His Spirit, not on ourselves.


Ecc 12:12

And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh. (the flesh profits nothing)


Mar 4:11-12

And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.


Luk 10:21

At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.


Jas 1:5-6

If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him.
But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind.

Jhn 5:39-41

“You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.
“But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.
“I do not receive honor from men.

Why should I deal with verses thrown at me that are taken out of context? Must I always deal with your posts, Lizbeth, by taking the time to look at the contexts of the verses you provide? Why should I do that?

You are skirting the ISSUE that Jesus Himself and His inspired writers OFTEN placed the time of His return in THEIR generation. I have told you this numerous times by pointing out how Jesus ALWAYS used the expression "this generation." You continue to deflecdt and resort to unrelated verses.

Seriously, are you contending through Ecclesiastes 12:12 that studying God's word brings "weariness of the flesh"? Do you KNOW the CONTEXT here and of all the verses you throw out because you think they prove you right? Look at verse 9:

"Besides being wise, the Preacher also taught the people knowledge, weighing and STUDYING and arranging many proverbs wiht GREAT CARE. The Preacher SOUGHT to find words of delight, and uprightly he wrote words of TRUTH." This is contrast in verse 12 by those who write many books NOT given by the Shepherd. Engaging in such an endeavor and study that does not come from the Shepherd is "weariness of the flesh." That's the context!

Mark 4:11, 12 To WHOM is this addressed, Lizbeth? Do you know who the "them" are? Jesus is speaking to "those around Him with the Twelve" (vs. 10). THEY asked Him about the parables. And He said to THEM--"to YOU HAS BEEN GIVEN the secret of the mystery of the Kingdom of God, but for THOSE OUTSIDE everything is in parables. It was THOSE OUTSIDE who would "see" but not "perceive" and "hear" and not "understand." That's the context!

Luke 10:21 Jesus sent out the TWENTY-TWO. This follow upon Jesus' proclaiming the cost of following Him in chapter 9. He sent the 72 out ahead of him, two by two, into every town to which He was about to go. He was sending THEM out to "lambs in the midst of wolves" (10:3). They were to take nothing with them. Any city that rejected them and did not provide for them, they were to neglect and walk away from. That town would be worse off than Sodom! The kingdom of God had come NEAR to them (vss. 1-12). Then He pronounces judgment of the cities of Chorazin and Bethsaida and Capernaum. He told His disciples that those who heard them, in effect, heard HIm and those who rejected them, rejected the one who sent Him.

The 72 returned with great joy. The demons were subjected to them in His name, but their real joy was to come from knowing that their names were written in heaven (vss. 17-20). Then Jesus rejoiced in the Holy Spirit because the hidden things of God were revealed,, not to the "wise," but to "little children" (i.e., His followers). Please note, Lizbeth, that the CONTEXT clealy uses the words "wise" and "learned" SARCASTICALLY. They are wise and learned in their own eyes--much like the Pharisees and the Scribes. This is not a slam on being "wise" or "learned" in a good sense. Before the written word and while Jesus was still alive, things were revealed to them through HIS words to THEM. Many of them were Jews who had already STUDIED the OT writings!

James 1:5-6 To whom is James writing, Lizbeth? He is addressing the "twelve tribes in the Dispersion" (vs. 1). THEY were being tested in the faith over many trials. THEY were to "count it all joy" and "remain steadfast" (vss. 2, 3). This "wisdom" they were to ask for was about how to remain steadfast in the presence of trials! It is not about gaining knowledge. Notice in verse 21 that they are admonished to be doers of the WORD? How would they do that except that they KNEW the word through obtaining knowledge through listening, hearing, and studying for themselves.


Jhn 5:39-41

“You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.
“But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.
“I do not receive honor from men.

Again, WHAT is the CONTEXT? WHO are the YOU? Did you bother finding out or were you waiting for the Holy Spirit to tell you without any effort on your part? After Jesus healed on the Sabbath, the Jews accused Him of doing something unlawful. He then presents His authority and that His authority comes from the Father. He points out to them that they "do not believe the one whom he has sent." THEY have searched the Scriptures (Jesus does NOT condemn this) with the wrong motive. Their searching without faith made them fail to see that those very Scriptures spoke of HIM. Learning and studying "the writings" was a good thing. THEY set their hope on Moses but they didn't believe him. Jesus made it clear that to believe in MOSES was to believe in HIM because MOSES spoke of HIM.

What do these verses have to do with the timing of Christ's return. You seem to be accusing me of searching the Scriptures futilely. That my indepth, diligent study of God's word brings nothing but "weariness of the flesh" and that I can only understand the "hidden things" of God through supernatural means. I demonstrated to you that those things were not hidden from US but from them. There are no hidden things to US. Are we to simply ask of God, and He will give us the knowledge of the Bible without our personal study?

I have dealt for the last time with the verses you throw out taken out of context. I encourage you, Lizbeth, for your own edification and understanding, that every time you come across a verse or actually search for a verse in order to engage in a debate, that you STOP and take the time to ascertain the CONTEXT. It is out of concern for you that I say this--so that you do not abuse (knowingly or unkowingly) the Scriptures to your own end. Heed the words of Peter to his first-century audience. He reminds them that there were some of their own day who "twist" the Scriptures to their own destruction" (2 Tim. 3:16). They, on the other hand, were to not be "carried away carried away with the eror of lawless people."

If we are to "rightly divide the Word of Truth," we must first STUDY it and know it (2 Tim. 2:15).

 

[Lizbeth]

Why should I deal with verses thrown at me that are taken out of context? Must I always deal with your posts, Lizbeth, by taking the time to look at the contexts of the verses you provide? Why should I do that?

You are skirting the ISSUE that Jesus Himself and His inspired writers OFTEN placed the time of His return in THEIR generation. I have told you this numerous times by pointing out how Jesus ALWAYS used the expression "this generation." You continue to deflecdt and resort to unrelated verses.

Seriously, are you contending through Ecclesiastes 12:12 that studying God's word brings "weariness of the flesh"? Do you KNOW the CONTEXT here and of all the verses you throw out because you think they prove you right? Look at verse 9:

"Besides being wise, the Preacher also taught the people knowledge, weighing and STUDYING and arranging many proverbs wiht GREAT CARE. The Preacher SOUGHT to find words of delight, and uprightly he wrote words of TRUTH." This is contrast in verse 12 by those who write many books NOT given by the Shepherd. Engaging in such an endeavor and study that does not come from the Shepherd is "weariness of the flesh." That's the context!

Mark 4:11, 12 To WHOM is this addressed, Lizbeth? Do you know who the "them" are? Jesus is speaking to "those around Him with the Twelve" (vs. 10). THEY asked Him about the parables. And He said to THEM--"to YOU HAS BEEN GIVEN the secret of the mystery of the Kingdom of God, but for THOSE OUTSIDE everything is in parables. It was THOSE OUTSIDE who would "see" but not "perceive" and "hear" and not "understand." That's the context!

Luke 10:21 Jesus sent out the TWENTY-TWO. This follow upon Jesus' proclaiming the cost of following Him in chapter 9. He sent the 72 out ahead of him, two by two, into every town to which He was about to go. He was sending THEM out to "lambs in the midst of wolves" (10:3). They were to take nothing with them. Any city that rejected them and did not provide for them, they were to neglect and walk away from. That town would be worse off than Sodom! The kingdom of God had come NEAR to them (vss. 1-12). Then He pronounces judgment of the cities of Chorazin and Bethsaida and Capernaum. He told His disciples that those who heard them, in effect, heard HIm and those who rejected them, rejected the one who sent Him.

The 72 returned with great joy. The demons were subjected to them in His name, but their real joy was to come from knowing that their names were written in heaven (vss. 17-20). Then Jesus rejoiced in the Holy Spirit because the hidden things of God were revealed,, not to the "wise," but to "little children" (i.e., His followers). Please note, Lizbeth, that the CONTEXT clealy uses the words "wise" and "learned" SARCASTICALLY. They are wise and learned in their own eyes--much like the Pharisees and the Scribes. This is not a slam on being "wise" or "learned" in a good sense. Before the written word and while Jesus was still alive, things were revealed to them through HIS words to THEM. Many of them were Jews who had already STUDIED the OT writings!

James 1:5-6 To whom is James writing, Lizbeth? He is addressing the "twelve tribes in the Dispersion" (vs. 1). THEY were being tested in the faith over many trials. THEY were to "count it all joy" and "remain steadfast" (vss. 2, 3). This "wisdom" they were to ask for was about how to remain steadfast in the presence of trials! It is not about gaining knowledge. Notice in verse 21 that they are admonished to be doers of the WORD? How would they do that except that they KNEW the word through obtaining knowledge through listening, hearing, and studying for themselves.


Jhn 5:39-41

“You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.
“But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.
“I do not receive honor from men.

Again, WHAT is the CONTEXT? WHO are the YOU? Did you bother finding out or were you waiting for the Holy Spirit to tell you without any effort on your part? After Jesus healed on the Sabbath, the Jews accused Him of doing something unlawful. He then presents His authority and that His authority comes from the Father. He points out to them that they "do not believe the one whom he has sent." THEY have searched the Scriptures (Jesus does NOT condemn this) with the wrong motive. Their searching without faith made them fail to see that those very Scriptures spoke of HIM. Learning and studying "the writings" was a good thing. THEY set their hope on Moses but they didn't believe him. Jesus made it clear that to believe in MOSES was to believe in HIM because MOSES spoke of HIM.

What do these verses have to do with the timing of Christ's return. You seem to be accusing me of searching the Scriptures futilely. That my indepth, diligent study of God's word brings nothing but "weariness of the flesh" and that I can only understand the "hidden things" of God through supernatural means. I demonstrated to you that those things were not hidden from US but from them. There are no hidden things to US. Are we to simply ask of God, and He will give us the knowledge of the Bible without our personal study?

I have dealt for the last time with the verses you throw out taken out of context. I encourage you, Lizbeth, for your own edification and understanding, that every time you come across a verse or actually search for a verse in order to engage in a debate, that you STOP and take the time to ascertain the CONTEXT. It is out of concern for you that I say this--so that you do not abuse (knowingly or unkowingly) the Scriptures to your own end. Heed the words of Peter to his first-century audience. He reminds them that there were some of their own day who "twist" the Scriptures to their own destruction" (2 Tim. 3:16). They, on the other hand, were to not be "carried away carried away with the eror of lawless people."

If we are to "rightly divide the Word of Truth," we must first STUDY it and know it (2 Tim. 2:15).

I certainly do do look at context. But I know the Lord is not always limited to context, as I've said a few times now. And I've been encouraging you to look to the Holy Spirit.

The word "study" in the 2 Tim 2 verse means "endeavour" in ye olde Englishe. God is not telling us to study the bible like a textbook. (although I believe scholarship can be useful up to a point)

You still haven't answered my questions about your denominational background/belief system.....?

 

[HappyOma]

I certainly do do look at context. But I know the Lord is not always limited to context, as I've said a few times now. And I've been encouraging you to look to the Holy Spirit.

The word "study" in the 2 Tim 2 verse means "endeavour" in ye olde Englishe. God is not telling us to study the bible like a textbook. (although I believe scholarship can be useful up to a point)

You still haven't answered my questions about your denominational background/belief system.....?

The LORD speaks in His WORD in CONTEXT. How can we understand any of it if we do not look at the who, what, when, where, why, and how? Those are simple aspects of SOUND Bible study.

As I demonstrated to you, you took EVERY ONE of those verses you posted to me out of context. I pointed out to you that, as a result, you misapplied them. THAT is why we are to study IN CONTEXT.

Without or without the word "study" as found in some translations, the principle is strongly implied in RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH. How does one "rightly divide" unless he STUDIES.

What is your problem with studying the Bible? You apparently do so or you wouldn't post verses you claim to understand IN CONTEXT. If you "cerftainly look at context," then you certainly study.

You encourage me to "look to the Holy Spirit." Why? How do you know that I don't? You think I don't because I disagree with you through scriptural arguments. Certainly, everyone who disagrees with you must not be "looking to the Holy Spirit." That is an unjust charge.

You don't like the truths I give you, so then you accuse me of not looking to the Holy Spirit. Perhaps you should take your own advice. If you did, you would always study verses in context and not throw them around callously in order to attempt to prove some point. That is abuse of Scripture--something the Holy Spirit would never encourage you to do.

What question about my denominational background? What does that have to do with the scriptural arguments I have provided?

But I'll telll you anyway. I have no "denominational background." I attended a NON-DENOMINATIONAL church that is totally independent. Why do you want to know? Are you eager to accuse me of listening to false teaching and not having a thought of my own. I also graduated Magna Cum Laude from Grace Theological Seminary. It is a FUTURIST school that probably teaches everything you believe. Praise God that He led me to see the errors of that institution through the guidance of the Holy Spirit and indepth personal study of the Bible.

What I believe comes from DECADES of personal study independent of a church or denomination. In fact, I find fault with most of them.

 

[WPM]

But I'll telll you anyway. I have no "denominational background." I attended a NON-DENOMINATIONAL church that is totally independent. Why do you want to know? Are you eager to accuse me of listening to false teaching and not having a thought of my own. I also graduated Magna Cum Laude from Grace Theological Seminary. It is a FUTURIST school that probably teaches everything you believe. Praise God that He led me to see the errors of that institution through the guidance of the Holy Spirit and indepth personal study of the Bible.

What I believe comes from DECADES of personal study independent of a church or denomination. In fact, I find fault with most of them.

You are right and everyone is is wrong! Yea, right! You have the revelation. The rest of the Church is blind.

 

[HappyOma]

You are right and everyone is is wrong! Yea, right! You have the revelation. The rest of the Church is blind.

Many in the Church are blind because they are indoctrinated by the egregious errors of dispensationalism invented by John Nelson Darby in the 1800s and promoted by C. I. Scofield and his "study" Bible (1900s). ALL of the Bible colleges picked up these errors and the Church was greatly harmed by it ever since.

I AM right when I insist that Jesus ALWAYS meant His contemporaries when He used the expression "THIS generation." How do I know that? I looked up all NINETEEN times that He said those words. In all of the contexts, He meant those of HIS own day. That is not "revelation" that others don't have. It's the willingness to accept what simple words mean--regardless of what it does to any personal paradigm I or anyone might hold to.

It is not from some special revelation that I understand the timing of the Book of Revelation. I accept that John was shown those things which were to SHORTLY take place; the time was NEAR (Rev. 1:1, 3; 22:6, 10). His vision involved those things leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in A. D. 70.

I take Peter at his word when he wrote: "The end of ALL things is AT HAND" (1 Peter 4:7).

I believe James when he wrote: "The COMING of the Lord is AT HAND" (James 5:8) and the judge is AT THE DOOR (James 5:9).

I accept the words of the writer of Hebrews who, writing shortly before A. D. 70 (ca 64-69), stated: "In a very, very little while He who is coming will come and will NOT DELAY" (Heb. 10:37).

I believe Jesus and HIS timing when He told the Twelve before He sent them out to the lost sheep of Israel: "YOU will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man COMES" (Mat. 10:23). I believe Jesus when He told those same disciples: "there are some standing HERE who will not taste death until THEY see the Son of Man COMING I:N HIS KINGDOM" (Mat. 16:28). I believe Jesus when He told Caiaphas and the Jewish leaders, after they accused Him of blasphemy: "YOU will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and CO:MING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN" (Mat. 26:64). These are not difficult words. The do not need "revelation."

Preterists can't win with futurists who, almost constantly accusing them of spiritualizing everything, find fault when they take words LITERALLY!

The NT is permeated with time words and time statements that clearly teach that Jesus was coming back in THAT generation to THOSE of that day.

 

[Lizbeth]

The LORD speaks in His WORD in CONTEXT. How can we understand any of it if we do not look at the who, what, when, where, why, and how? Those are simple aspects of SOUND Bible study.

As I demonstrated to you, you took EVERY ONE of those verses you posted to me out of context. I pointed out to you that, as a result, you misapplied them. THAT is why we are to study IN CONTEXT.

I'd just be repeating myself to answer this.

Without or without the word "study" as found in some translations, the principle is strongly implied in RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH. How does one "rightly divide" unless he STUDIES.

How does one rightly divide between soul and spirit without the Holy Spirit? How does the natural carnal mind of man compare spiritual with spiritual, which scripture says we are to do? The things of God are spiritually discerned and the natural man can't perceive them.

What is your problem with studying the Bible? You apparently do so or you wouldn't post verses you claim to understand IN CONTEXT. If you "cerftainly look at context," then you certainly study.

As I did say, I'm not against studying and scholarship.....I just don't believe that is what we are to place our reliance on. We need "wings" of the Holy Spirit to illuminate and "see" His word.

You encourage me to "look to the Holy Spirit." Why? How do you know that I don't? You think I don't because I disagree with you through scriptural arguments. Certainly, everyone who disagrees with you must not be "looking to the Holy Spirit." That is an unjust charge.

By your own words you are relying on context. I believe we need to mine and dig deeper (higher?) than that in places. And I haven't "charged" you with anything. But for some reason this is a touchy subject with you.

You don't like the truths I give you, so then you accuse me of not looking to the Holy Spirit. Perhaps you should take your own advice. If you did, you would always study verses in context and not throw them around callously in order to attempt to prove some point. That is abuse of Scripture--something the Holy Spirit would never encourage you to do.

On the contrary as I've also said more than once, I agree with what you are presenting about things that have already occurred and been fulfilled. But I also believe there are things that will be fulfilled in the future as well. I believe the things that happened unto Israel/Jerusalem were things the mostly Gentile church needs to take warning from. I've noticed a few times on forums people are arguing one side against another as if they are mutually exclusive when the truth is really that both sides were right.

In case it is helpful, I was talking on another thread with someone who believes the world has been judged already......and I suggested that maybe it is like the Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world, but still awaited the fulness of time and appointed day for it happen or manifest in the realm of time. Because clearly Israel/Jerusalem got judged in the first century, but it's just as obvious the Gentiles haven't been judged yet, and as I believe, is awaiting the appointed day known only to God.

What question about my denominational background? What does that have to do with the scriptural arguments I have provided?

But I'll telll you anyway. I have no "denominational background." I attended a NON-DENOMINATIONAL church that is totally independent. Why do you want to know? Are you eager to accuse me of listening to false teaching and not having a thought of my own. I also graduated Magna Cum Laude from Grace Theological Seminary. It is a FUTURIST school that probably teaches everything you believe. Praise God that He led me to see the errors of that institution through the guidance of the Holy Spirit and indepth personal study of the Bible.

I have been wondering if you might be cessationist, or not.

What I believe comes from DECADES of personal study independent of a church or denomination. In fact, I find fault with most of them.

I'm going to be frank here: Good for you. As I tried to point out, so did the Pharisees study and study for decades and hundreds of years who refused to come to Christ for life of the Spirit. In other words, what did it profit them? And I'm wondering where is God being glorified in all this boasting?

 

[rwb]

I AM right when I insist that Jesus ALWAYS meant His contemporaries when He used the expression "THIS generation."

Your error is that your doctrine forces you to limit "this generation" to the first century AD. While I agree Christ was speaking directly to first century Christian Jews when He spoke from the Mount of Olives. But He was NOT speaking explicitly to them only.

I will ask you once more. If Christ was speaking only to Jews in the first century AD, why did He say in Mt 24:30 "THEY shall see" (Mark & Luke also) when speaking of the appearing of the sign of the Son of man in heaven? If the discourse was written exclusively to the first century Jewish Christians only, Christ would have said, and YOU/YE shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. Instead, when speaking directly to THEM, the words Christ spoke speak to them and THEY! Who are "they"? Christ tells them and us, all who shall see with visible sight what shall be AFTER the tribulation of the days He is speaking of.

Matthew 24:29-31 (KJV) Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

There was no mourning of "all the tribes of the earth", nor did ALL the tribes of the earth "they"..."see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven".

Where else can we find help in understanding who THEY "who shall see God" in Scripture is written for? Will you try to force these verses of Scripture to agree with your false doctrine by saying these verses apply ONLY to first century Jewish Christians?

Matthew 5:8 (KJV) Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

Romans 15:20-21 (KJV) Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation: But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.

Revelation 22:1-4 (KJV) And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.

Why have you thus far refused to answer the question??? All of these verses translate the Greek word ὀπτάνομαι optánomai, op-tan'-om-ahee "they shall see." [a (middle voice) prolonged form of the primary (middle voice) ὄπτομαι óptomai op'-tom-ahee; which is used for it in certain tenses; and both as alternate of G3708; to gaze (i.e. with wide-open eyes, as at something remarkable]