Search results

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...

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...

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

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

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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.

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...