Search results

The parable of the fig tree is an analogy. Just as when a fig tree sprouts leaves you know summer is near, so also when you see "all these things", know it is near, right at the door, or as Luke puts it, the kingdom of God is near. What are the antecedents to "all these things"?

Grammatically, "all these things" also includes the fall of temple. So from a contextual, grammatical, and linguistical standpoint - This generation will not pass away until the temple is destroyed and the son of man comes on the clouds. None of this demonstrates that Jesus' first century...

I agree There are no scriptures that specifically, explicitly, nor clearly state Christ would come in 70ad. There are only scriptures that state Christ would come before this generation passed away - Matthew 24:34 Please provide specific, clear, and explicit scriptures that contradict the...

Your response is high on rhetoric and emotion, but low on direct textual engagement. You rely heavily on an external framework to claim I’m wrong. I do not accept your external framework or how you apply it to the Olivet Discourse—just as you would likely reject a premillennial's external...

You’re right—Jesus didn’t come on the clouds according to YOUR framework. But that’s the issue: you’re interpreting the Olivet Discourse through a futuristic lens instead of letting the passage speak on its own terms. Accusing me of ignoring “all of Scripture” doesn’t address the specific...

Again, the majority of biblical dictionaries, lexicons, scholarly commentaries, and English translations have genea, especially in Matthew 24:34, meaning generation - as in a group of contemporaneous people. My justification for the definition is based on expert scholarly consensus. This is an...

CONTEXTUALLY, the olivet discourse is Jesus’ RESPONSE to 2 questions - “when will these things be (the destruction of the 2nd temple) and what is the SIGN of your coming/end of the age? GRAMMATICALLY , the antecedents to the phrase “all these things” in verse 34 refers to the entirety of the...

CONTEXTUALLY, the olivet discourse is Jesus’ RESPONSE to 2 questions - “when will these things be (the destruction of the 2nd temple) and what is the SIGN of your coming/end of the age? GRAMMATICALLY , the antecedents to the phrase “all these things” in verse 34 refers to the entirety of the...

In the context of the Olivet Discourse, the evidence indicates that the Greek word γένεα (genea) means “generation,” understood as a group of people living at the same time. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon defines genea as “the whole multitude of men living at the same time Matthew 24:34" BDAG...

My argument is not false as it’s not an appeal to popularity or tradition —it’s an appeal to consistent, evidence-based linguistic analysis. It is a fact that the majority of dictionaries, lexicons, scholarly commentators, and English translations render genea as generation - a group of people...

I did.

It’s not an assumption. It’s based on the vast majority of dictionaries, lexicons, biblical commentaries, and English translations recognizing genea means a generation, as in a group of people living that the same time, in the context of the Olivet discourse. I think CS Lewis was referring...

This is not really accurate at all. In Greek, ἐν + dative noun = inessive meaning. In other words ἐν + dative = place or location. Christ in (ἐν) you is the correct translation. ἐν does not mean “for/on behalf of”. That would be a different Greek preposition - ὑπέρ, and it would be followed by...

Revelation’s use of Old Testament allusions—such as those in chapter 18 concerning Babylon (drawn from Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel)—does not demand that the new referent (whether Rome, apostate religion, first-century Jerusalem, or another corrupt power) literally fulfill every detail of the...

Alcazar was likely the first to systematically apply preterism "to revelation", but he was not the first to apply preterism to the olivet disourse nor daniel. Alcazar held that Revelation 1-11 was about the first century conflict between church and Jewish synagoge, and that chapters 12-19 were...

solely from a contextual and grammatical standpoint, the wheat does not turn into a tare nor vise versa. The parable is simply not about repentance and coming to Christ, whether earlier or later. It’s about delaying the removal the tares until harvest, so that the wheat isn’t prematurely...

No, I’m confused because You said you got the meaning of genea as “family” from Strongs. Where does Strongs exhaustive concordance define genea as “family”? I can’t seem to find that in Strongs concordance? I pasted Strongs “definition” in the previous post and it didn’t say family...

Within the context of the parable, Wheat and tares don’t change into each other. The delay in harvest is NOT to give tares more time to become wheat. Instead, pulling up a tare prematurely may result in the harvester accidentally pulling up the wheat and burning it, as both plants look...

Strongs exhaustive concordance contains 1-2 word glosses of Greek words in regards to how the KJV translates it into English , not exhaustive contextual definitions. Even strong, in the preface of his dictionary, stated that his definitions are brief and further use of a lexicon should be used...

That’s not how lexicons work.