Search results

So in the Matthew 24:6 ongoing application to all believers, " end " is the Second Coming. And in the Matthew 24:6 historical application to the disciples, " end " is the Second Coming. The first is true, the second is untenable. It is simply inconceivable that with all of the discourse which...

Is there any instance of " end " within Matthew 24 that refers to the end occurring in 70 AD? Or do all instances of " end " in Matthew 24 refer exclusively to the Second Coming?

I referenced them because it was wars and rumors within the Roman Empire which would be most troubling without Jesus' reassurance.

Example?

Yes, "you" were the disciples, and ongoing watchfulness is a necessity for all believers.

Jesus does not tell us why He thought that they would or could be troubled. But He did think that they would or could be troubled. One possible reason could have been the abrupt increase in the frequency of wars and commotions (Luke 21:9) within the Roman Empire, as documented in the the...

Yes, believers understand that persecution has always been an ongoing reality. But Jesus' descriptions of persecutions were directed specifically to His "ye" and "you" disciples, and fulfilled specifically in the book of Acts, as I've cited. That is past history and will never be specifically...

The overarching counterquestion to your questions is: Why did Jesus bring these things up?

Then why did Jesus bring it up?

Tell God that the Lollards, Hugenots, Hussites, et al who stayed true to Him had no sway. Tell us what He tells you. :laughing: You'll be waiting until you decide to understand past and present verb tenses. In other words, forever. :laughing:

Then why did Jesus caution them (or more accurately, reassure them to "be not troubled" in verse 6)? Obviously He knew that they could or would be troubled without His reassurance. It makes sense to me.

Did He call you the AoD? :laughing:

Matthew 24 6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers...

You're the one saying that as you're equating orthodox Christianity with Romanism. Heretical according to you? Are you a closet papist? The Lollards were led by John Wycliffe. Any idea who he was? :laughing:

The point was so that Jesus' disciples would not be deceived into interpreting them as signs of an imminent end (verse 6). Jesus realized the possibility of such deception so He cautioned against it.

Untrue. Matthew 24 3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? Check the Greek. That end is a sunteleia end, not a telos end.

Because in Matthew 24, that's sunteleia. What adjoining verses in a single chapter does it go back and forth between? What global things? Everything in those verses can be explained locally historically.

Telos: Means "end," "conclusion," "purpose," or "goal." It can refer to the definitive termination of something or the final outcome. In the context of time, it can describe a specific moment in time when something ends. That is a pertinent explanation of why "telos" is applicable in this...

There is a need to differentiate between the end of the age and the end of the OT economy. Hence "sunteleia" for the former and "telos" for the latter. There is no rationale for using "telos" for the latter if it is in fact "sunteleia". But it's not "sunteleia". The alternative is "telos"...

The Matthew 24:14 end is a "telos" end. The Matthew 28:19 end is a "sunteleia" end, the same as Matthew 24:3. Thus we again see the distinction between the two different types of ends. The Matthew 28:19 end does not apply to the Matthew 24:14 end.