Search results

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  1. C

    Interesting preterist argument

    Correct it is a parable. The parable comes with no explanation as to the meaning of each component. That being said - the gathering of the good and bad into the wedding hall occurs POST the destruction of the city in the narrative. In what manner it is supposed to be interpreted - whether about...
  2. C

    Interesting preterist argument

    Well, I never argued that “great” refers to geographical distance — but you seem to think I did? That seems to be where some of the confusion lies. Grammatically and linguistically, the term “great” refers to the severity, intensity, or degree of the tribulation. The destruction of Jerusalem...
  3. C

    Interesting preterist argument

    Thank you for clarifying.
  4. C

    Interesting preterist argument

    Thank you for clarifying. IF no first century destruction of the temple is mentioned in the discourse simply BECAUSE you personally believe the entire discourse is about 2000 years removed future events, That’s a subjective interpretation based on framework - an exegetical fallacy.
  5. C

    Interesting preterist argument

    Well, Jesus did say that when they saw the events of the Olivet Discourse unfolding, they would know that it was near — right at the door. The Greek verb translated “know” is 2nd person, present indicative active: 2nd person – “you”; Jesus is directly addressing His disciples. Present – the...
  6. C

    Interesting preterist argument

    It literally is: 7The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. 8Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. 9Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.’...
  7. C

    Interesting preterist argument

    Per Thayer’s Lexicon, the adjective “great” is defined as indicating intensity or degree. In the context of Matthew 24:21. The phrase “has not been nor shall ever be” expresses a superlative idea, emphasizing that this tribulation’s intensity is unmatched in history or future. So I’m not sure...
  8. C

    Babylon

    Your distinction between symbolic entities and literal predicates isn’t biblically or literarily sustainable. Apocalyptic literature frequently employs symbolic agents executing symbolic actions — that’s part of the genre. You’re treating the actions as though they must have a one-to-one...
  9. C

    Interesting preterist argument

    It’s a GATHERING of good and bad into the wedding hall after the destruction of the city. Only according to your subjective framework.
  10. C

    Interesting preterist argument

    Grammatically and linguistically, Jesus said “There will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, nor to be again”. Grammatically, and linguistically, the comparison is on the severity of tribulation. That’s not a misrepresentation of the verse. Do...
  11. C

    Interesting preterist argument

    The authors of the epistles claimed it was near - James 5:8-9, 1 Peter 4:7, Hebrews 10:37, 1 John 2:18. Seems like that could be evidence their generation was the one seeing the events olivet discourse in light of the fig tree - “when you see all these things you WILL KNOW it is near, right at...
  12. C

    Interesting preterist argument

    Good point - @ewq1938 , do you think Luke 21:20 is about the destruction of Jerusalem in 66-70ad or no?
  13. C

    Interesting preterist argument

    Thematically, the gathering of the good and bad into the wedding hall occurs after the judgement and destruction of the city.
  14. C

    Interesting preterist argument

    I disagree - contextually, there’s definitely hyperbole : 21For at that time there will be great tribulation, unseen from the beginning of the world until now, and never to be seen again. 22If those days had not been cut short, nobody would be saved. Was the destruction of Jerusalem greater...
  15. C

    Interesting preterist argument

    It’s not false—an argument from silence is a conclusion drawn from the absence of evidence, whether that’s a specific term, concept, or idea you believe is missing. You’re concluding that Jesus didn’t answer the disciples’ first question because you think the Olivet Discourse lacks the concept...
  16. C

    Interesting preterist argument

    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...
  17. C

    Interesting preterist argument

    i disagree. This is highly unlikely. 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...
  18. C

    Interesting preterist argument

    Ok 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...
  19. C

    Interesting preterist argument

    Ok, so you have no rebuttal for your grammatical and contextual inconsistencies with which you negotiate with the text, and you can’t even address a simple example of how antecedents work. It appears Your sole argument for altering the grammar and context is that if you didn’t, the passage...
  20. C

    Interesting preterist argument

    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.