Search results

Well at least you are being consistent. Luke said “these be the days of vengeance” so I would think he was including the day of vengeance that Paul wrote about in 2 Thessalonians 1:8, otherwise all things written about the day of vengeance wasn’t fulfilled.

Are there any verses in the OT that use the word vengeance that are specific to only Luke 21:22? I would agree that Daniel 9:26 is talking about 70AD but to me it seems that Luke 21:22 is referring back to a verse that uses the term vengeance, else he might’ve said something like “these be the...

Ok, thanks. It appears you are defining “all things written” very narrowly. When Luke 21:22 says these be the days of vengeance, are you also limiting that to the same narrow definition?

Would you say all things written about the temple were fulfilled in 70AD?

Luke 21:22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 2 Thessalonians 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Many people place 2 Thessalonians 1:8 as taking place at a...

No strategy, just pointing out to you that nobody knows exactly all the work Jesus did, therefore your statement “It tells me of not knowing at best and confusion at worst” applies to you yourself too.

Ok, do you have a specific list of all the work that was given to Jesus to do? If you don’t supply a specific list then “It tells me of not knowing at best and confusion at worst.”

I would say the work that was finished had to do with the work that God gave Him to do. Jesus was obviously on earth after He rose until He ascended in Acts 1:9 but I’m not sure He was doing work during that time that was given to Him by God to do. What do you think? Is there any more work on...

I agree with you that the OT talks about the millennium without using the term “thousand”. If we agree Jesus was given that work to do, why did He say “I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do” in John 17:4? Jesus said that way before the Premil millennium.

Well, I’ll throw something out there that I’ve been thinking about for some time. John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. 5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world...

The wicked hopeless generation of Gentiles, prior to the cross, passed after the cross, at least according to the Amill position.

A great multitude which no man can number of the morally corrupt, unbelieving, without hope Gentles did pass, right? They passed from death to life, right? Which means the statement “this generation shall not pass”, can’t include all the wicked Gentiles, right?

So when Jesus said “this generation shall not pass”, was he talking about the Gentiles or not? Jesus made that statement prior to the cross.

Now hold on a minute, on the one hand SI says there is a clear difference from before the cross as compared to after the cross concerning the morally corrupt, unbelieving, without hope Gentles. And WPM is saying there was no difference, that morally corrupt, unbelieving, natural world order...

Alright, what your response is telling me is that all your points about no historical proof of a 70AD coming just fell apart because you yourself don’t need historical proof for your own beliefs.

It seems you rely heavily on ancient historical proof. In Matthew 2:16 we have the account of Herod killing all the children two years old and under. Since there is no ancient historical proof outside of the Bible that this happened, would you say anyone who believes this literally happened is...

Sure, so when a preterist puts forth all the corroborating scriptures that Christ was to soon come, why would you reject a 70AD coming? Wouldn’t a 70AD coming qualify as the Bible speaking for itself, letting scriptures corroborate, and the context then determining how we should understand it?

Thanks for the clarification.

Ok, I’m not pushing the preterist view on you here but I thought it was interesting that AI interpreted Matthew 24:34 in such a way that almost nobody would completely agree with.

I’m not going to provide answers to your list. But let me ask you this, should we look at the context of a word first in order to determine its definition or should we look at all the definitions of a word first and allow those definitions to help define the context?