Search results

The text is vague enough that the times of the gentiles could be understood as beginning and ending with the trampling of Jerusalem OR could have begun at some point prior to the trampling, with the trampling being the end/culmination. However, I don’t think that Grammatically, it allows for...

Luke 21:32 — “This generation will not pass away until all has taken place.” The phrase “has taken place” translates a verb in the aorist middle subjunctive form. Here’s what that implies: Aorist: This indicates a punctiliar or one-time action, rather than a continuous or ongoing process. It...

Contextually, it’s clear - “Jesus answered them”. Jesus does mention the “holy place” and the “abomination of desolation” “according to Daniel,” which alludes to Daniel passages such as 9:27, 11:31, and 12:11. These passages likely concern the temple complex—especially since the Greek word...

I agree the olivet discourse is what he taught on the mount. But contextually, the olivet discourse is triggered by the 2 questions posed to Jesus, by his disciples (Matthew 24:3-4) in response to what Jesus said about the temple (Matthew 24:1-2). So, Just to clarify, your position is that...

Regarding Matthew 24:34 — the phrase “all these things” (Greek: panta tauta) refers to “all” of what Jesus just finished describing. That’s not a my own “man-made rule”, It’s basic grammar. demonstrative pronouns like “these” refer to things mentioned in the previous continuous narrative, and...

Any understanding of the “times of the gentiles” is going to be a subjective interpretation, because the NT doesn’t explicitly state what the “times of the gentiles” are in relation to Jerusalem. That being said: Why would a preterist define the “times of the gentiles” as a 2,000 year post...

Joshua, who entered the promise land, was the 10th generation from Ephraim. Eleazar, who entered the promise land, was the 4th generation from Levi. I’m not sure how using Joshua’s lineage over Eleazar’s lineage demonstrates genesis 15 is not about Israel’s being strangers in/bondage in Egypt...

Jesus said they would be - “this generation will not pass away until all these things happen”. Additionally, the Olivet discourse is not the only passage that discusses a post-destruction-of-Jerusalem gathering. See Matthew 22:7-10. You cannot take away from any teaching or prophecy of the...

This doesn’t answer my clarifying question. What grammar rules did I create? Grammatically, the antecedent of “all these things” in verse 34 includes all the events described in the Olivet Discourse, due to the continuous flow of the narrative. Any insertion of a subjective...

Please give an example, instead of a generic statement. What “grammar rule” did I create? you are giving me your framework again. I don’t agree with your framework. If the antecedents to “all these things” in Matthew 23:34 includes both the gathering, and the great tribulation of Jerusalem in...

The parable of the fig tree in the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24:32; Mark 13:28; Luke 21:29) is framed as an analogy about timing, not identity. Jesus doesn’t say, “When you see the fig tree, know that Israel is about to blossom.” He says, “When you see its leaves, you know that summer is near...

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”...

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

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.

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...

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

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

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 -...

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

nice ad hominem. Paul was an intellectual.