Search results

The preterist position is that matthew 24:4-14 consists of events that occur in the years PRIOR to and leading up to the destruction of the temple and city. I don't think any preterist would argue vs 4-14 explain why the city and temple were destroyed. Are you aware that ChatGpt is designed to...

Grammatically, the antecedents to the demonstrative pronoun "these things" in the disciples' question, as found in vs 3, refer to the temple destruction in vs 1-2. In vs 4, Jesus "answers" them. So contextually, the OD contains at least in part answer to the disciples' question about when the...

Does Jesus say why the temple is destroyed in Matthew 24?

Comparing a literal reading of Matthew 24 to “seeing men as trees walking” is a false analogy. Ridiculing the plain meaning does not alter the text; reinterpretation occurs only when the literal referents are discarded without contextual cause — which is precisely what your post-hoc...

your “spiritual discernments” are all just post hoc allegorizations, nothing more or less. You are reassigning symbolic meanings to concrete terms after rejecting the plain referent, rather than deriving those meanings from the text itself. Jesus answered the disciples questions, which include...

I disagree. Matthew 24:15, contains the Greek words for “holy place”. Since, I don’t speak original koine Greek, I’ll appeal to Thayer’s, whose lexicon has the holy place meaning the temple building in Matthew 24:15. a. an inhabited place, as a city, village, district: Luke 4:37; Luke 10:1...

No, just a post hoc allegorization.

I think it’s important to note that the gospels were written after the cross, and after the pouring out of the spirit. That’s why you will find Holy Spirit inspired clarifications by the authors - such as John 2:18-21. Or the many prophesies that Jesus fulfilled according to Matthew. The...

Matthew 24:15-22

Orignally, @Davidpt disagreed that vs 1-2 had anything to do with the Olivet discourse. I disagreed with that because grammatically, the antecedents to “all these things” in vs 2 is the temple buildings, and the antecedent to “all these thing” in vs 3 is the destruction of the temple. The...

I’m pretty sure Jesus never answered a concrete, visible, historically anchored question with a hidden, unrelated referent WITHOUT the authors of the gospels either signaling it or Jesus later explaining it — and Matthew 24 contains neither. So I disagree with your eisegesis. Your argument...

Yes. I never stated “these things” in vs 3 refer to anything else beyond the temple destruction, so I have no idea what you are talking about. This has nothing to do with what I said. My argument was that the antecedents of “these things” refers to temple destruction from vs 1-2. The...

This doesn’t address the contextual or grammatical argument that Matthew 24:1-3 discuss the destruction of the temple buildings.

I never argued that vs 3 contained only one question, so I’m not sure what the point is of your condescending argument? Vs 3 contains 2 questions - 1.) when will these things be ( the antecedent being the destruction of temple) and 2.) what is the sign (of the parousia/end of the age). Vs 4...

I have no idea what any of this has to do with Matthew 24:1-3. Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, nor revelation are the context setting for Matthew 24. I’m not sure why your argument requires you to string together a bunch of NT verses…….. Matthew 24:1-3 sets the stage. It’s a series of questions...

As already stated, vs 3 contains a demonstrative pronoun - “these things” 3While Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?” The...

Grammatically, that's incorrect. Your response contains no grammatical argument, so I have no idea what you are talking about Grammatically, the antecedent to the demonstrative pronoun “these things” in vs 3 refers to the previous events of vs 1-2 the temple buildings and not one stone...

Right, they were spiritually dead Additionally, zao is a verb and zoe is a noun, so I'm not following your argument about comparing the patterns of use between the two?

Doesn't matter if you believe it is separate. That's not the point that I am making. @Davidpt seemed to argue that vs 1-3, in regards to the temple destruction, are completely unrelated or have nothing to do with the olivet discourse. However, this is untenable from a grammatical and contextual...

Appealing to Thayer's, the lexicon has zao meaning spiritual life in revelation 3:1 "thou art said to have life (i. e. vigorous spiritual life bringing forth good fruit) and (yet) thou art dead (ethically), Revelation 3:1." But I don't think the word zao means spiritual life in revelation...