a non-eschatological Coming?

[Randy Kluth]

What is missing in most interpretations of end time events, is any accurate understanding of the convergence of time with eternity, i.e., between mankind and the ways of this world, and God.

With all due respect, I think you're oversimplifying things. Yes, when eternity intersects with the finite world of time, there has to be a bit of a disconnect in our understanding. But if we couldn't understand, then why even try to explain? The parables were not given to make the transcendent understandable, but rather, to confuse those who didn't want to hear.

I don't find endtime Scriptures too difficult to understand. It just takes perseverance and willingness to conform with the things that interests God, and not just us.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I don't agree. You can't say a coming of Jesus in judgment and deny there was a coming at the same time. You are very much a Partial Preterist and I'm not the only one to recognize this fact.

It isn't a fact, and those who agree with you are wrong. I've given you the definition of Preterism, including Partial Preterism. You apparently wish to ignore this and just be contentious.

There is clearly a Coming of God in the OT in the form of Divine acts of judgment, and not a theophany. If so, Jesus can identify with these Comings of God in Divine acts of judgment. I gave you the Scriptures that indicates this.

A coming is a physical and visible arrival. What you cited is not a coming. The first and second coming were physical comings/arrivals. There is no coming at all in 70AD. Jesus was not there and didn't need to be there. He was in heaven when that happened.

The Scriptures plainly state that "God comes" in His acts of judgment. There are a number of variations on "God comes" but it is there--you only have to look.

Isa 19.1 A prophecy against Egypt: See, the Lord rides on a swift cloud and is coming to Egypt.

There are many such references. I would even say it was the standard way of describing God's judgments, as a coming of God for judgment, or as a day of the Lord bringing judgment.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The Olivet Discourse is only that which he said while on the mount. Nothing else can be added to it. What he said at the temple is not part of the Olivet Discourse.

That is a false assumption that you're making, just because the conversation started in the temple and was re-started on the top of the Mt. of Olives. Every version begins with the statement that the temple will fall, which happened in 70 AD.

Therefore, the Olivet Discourse was focused primarily on the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. Questions about Christ's Coming were accessory, or ancillary, questions associated with the main statement that Jerusalem would fall.

Jesus' answer revealed that concern about the timing of his Coming should take 2nd place to the need for Jews in his time to immediately prepare, morally and spiritually, for the judgment about to take place in 70 AD, a judgment that would lead to eternal judgment at the 2nd Coming of Christ.

 

[ewq1938]

It isn't a fact, and those who agree with you are wrong. I've given you the definition of Preterism, including Partial Preterism. You apparently wish to ignore this and just be contentious.

Wrong, you are a partial preterist and have been for a long time but you protest in false earnest.

 

[ewq1938]

That is a false assumption that you're making, just because the conversation started in the temple and was re-started on the top of the Mt. of Olives. Every version begins with the statement that the temple will fall, which happened in 70 AD.

You remain wrong. The Olivet Discourse is only what was said on that mountain. You are wrongly adding things NOT SAID ON THE MOUNTAIN. You will always be wrong on this. Your doctrine is terribly wrong.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Wrong, you are a partial preterist and have been for a long time but you protest in false earnest.

I'm not a Partial Preterist, and never have been. You've been given the definition of what a Partial Preterist is, and I don't fit that definition. If you want to write your own definition of PP up, you need to check whether it's accurate. It's not.

The Church Fathers largely believed the Olivet Discourse, including the AoD, was fulfilled in the 70 AD judgment, with the 2nd Coming taking place after a long period of Jewish Dispersion. They were *not* Partial Preterists. Preterism did not even exist yet!

You are contentious, brother. Your facts are wrong, and insistence on calling me something that is based on a false definition is an attempt to slander me. It leads people to believe I reject the book of Revelation in a futurist way. But I do interpret the book of Revelation in a futurist way. I accept a future Antichrist is coming. I believe in a literal 2nd Coming of Christ at the end of the age.

If you believe any biblical prophecy has been fulfilled in history, does that make you a Preterist? Of course not. But some think that just the belief that the AoD was fulfilled in history makes one a Preterist. It does not.

But be contentious if you wish. I won't lose any sleep over it.

I will never identify with Partial Preterism, simply because I don't agree with that interpretive system. But that doesn't mean I disagree with every item that Preterism believes in. They believe that Jesus was the Son of God. So do I. But that doesn't make me a Preterist!

 

[Truth7t7]

My argument was that the word for "generation" is understood in context, whether for the Jewish race as a whole or for a specific, limited time, as in a single generation of from 20 to 70 years. The context determines the meaning of "generation," and not the other way around.

As a Greek student, you should know this. I know this even though I'm not much of a Greek student. I only took one class in Greek, and like anybody else can read a lexicon, a concordance, or other reference works.

We agree that Luke 21 centers on the 70 AD destruction. Amazingly, a number of people I discuss this with on the forums, who want to see the Olivet Discourse about Antichrist, completely reject any notion of 70 AD in any of the versions! I'm glad you don't.

But I do think it's a bad idea to try to split the 3 versions into saying very different things. I've studied them all together, and find they are very much in agreement with one another. If Luke 21 referred to 70 AD, then so did Matt 24 and Mar 13. Just my opinion.

Your argument is in promoting preterist, reformed eschatology, as per my observation and opinion

Matthew 24 is speaking to the "Future" church on earth in Jerusalem, those who are saved and being persecuted for the name of Jesus Christ

The church is instructed to flee Jerusalem, when Daniels Abomination Of Desolation takes place in the "Future"

As scripture clearly teaches below, its a "Future Generation" that will be eyewitnesses of the signs and second coming of Jesus Christ

(This Generation Shall Not Pass) "Future"

1.) What is near, even at the doors,
(The Lords Return) "Future"

2.) What is the day and hour no man knows,(The Lords Return) "Future"

Jesus Is The Lord

Matthew 24:33-36KJV
33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

 

[ScottA]

With all due respect, I think you're oversimplifying things. Yes, when eternity intersects with the finite world of time, there has to be a bit of a disconnect in our understanding. But if we couldn't understand, then why even try to explain? The parables were not given to make the transcendent understandable, but rather, to confuse those who didn't want to hear.

I don't find endtime Scriptures too difficult to understand. It just takes perseverance and willingness to conform with the things that interests God, and not just us.

The Path to All Truth:

It is understanding the difference between the finite terms of this world and that of eternity and the kingdom of God, that is referred to by Paul with the need of "rightly dividing the word of truth." This he said to advance our understand ("knowledge shall increase") in preparation for "all truth." This is what we are suppose to be doing during these times--not making scriptures secure and rigid like the Pharisees did with the law, but unleashing the power of God by the Holy Spirit, whom has been sent for this very purpose.

By doing so (rightly dividing the word of truth), all truth is no longer restrained--which serves, not one, but two purposes:

1. The pouring out of God's spirit upon the "good" brings to a close the revelations of God before the end.
2. The pouring out of God's spirit upon the "evil" brings that foretold divide of the Mount of Olives, which spiritually is that place above Jerusalem.

...This is the effect of God pouring out His spirit upon all flesh, which began at Pentecost..."that there should be delay no longer."

 

[Truth7t7]

The Path to All Truth:

It is understanding the difference between the finite terms of this world and that of eternity and the kingdom of God, that is referred to by Paul with the need of "rightly dividing the word of truth." This he said to advance our understand ("knowledge shall increase") in preparation for "all truth." This is what we are suppose to be doing during these times--not making scriptures secure and rigid like the Pharisees did with the law, but unleashing the power of God by the Holy Spirit, whom has been sent for this very purpose.

By doing so (rightly dividing the word of truth), all truth is no longer restrained--which serves, not one, but two purposes:

1. The pouring out of God's spirit upon the "good" brings to a close the revelations of God before the end.
2. The pouring out of God's spirit upon the "evil" brings that foretold divide of the Mount of Olives, which spiritually is that place above Jerusalem.

...This is the effect of God pouring out His spirit upon all flesh, which began at Pentecost..."that there should be delay no longer."

"Rightly dividing the word of truth"

Do you claim to be one who rightly divides and provides this truth?

 

[ScottA]

"Rightly dividing the word of truth"

Do you claim to be one who rightly divides and provides this truth?

What--who did I say?

 

[Truth7t7]

My argument was that the word for "generation" is understood in context, whether for the Jewish race as a whole or for a specific, limited time, as in a single generation of from 20 to 70 years. The context determines the meaning of "generation," and not the other way around.

As a Greek student, you should know this. I know this even though I'm not much of a Greek student. I only took one class in Greek, and like anybody else can read a lexicon, a concordance, or other reference works.

We agree that Luke 21 centers on the 70 AD destruction. Amazingly, a number of people I discuss this with on the forums, who want to see the Olivet Discourse about Antichrist, completely reject any notion of 70 AD in any of the versions! I'm glad you don't.

But I do think it's a bad idea to try to split the 3 versions into saying very different things. I've studied them all together, and find they are very much in agreement with one another. If Luke 21 referred to 70 AD, then so did Matt 24 and Mar 13. Just my opinion.

Yes you are Preterist in your interpretation of the Olivet discourse, in 70AD fulfillment

Matthew 24 has absolutely nothing to do with 70AD

Matthew 24 is speaking to the future church on earth concerning "signs and events" that will precede the Lords return (This Generation) "Future"

The destruction of the temple was symbolic of the Lords body, and not a literal 70AD temple in Jerusalem

John 2:19-22KJV
19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

you cannot read, study, or teach Word, by extraction

well that may be what you believe, but that does not mean that that is true, rn
what is the OT equivalent of "speaking in tongues," iyo?

There was no gift of tongues in the OT? Tongues as spoken of in Cornthians is a gift from the Holy Spirit given to the church.

And based on Scripture, what I believe is true.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

My argument was that the word for "generation" is understood in context, whether for the Jewish race as a whole or for a specific, limited time, as in a single generation of from 20 to 70 years. The context determines the meaning of "generation," and not the other way around.

As a Greek student, you should know this. I know this even though I'm not much of a Greek student. I only took one class in Greek, and like anybody else can read a lexicon, a concordance, or other reference works.

We agree that Luke 21 centers on the 70 AD destruction. Amazingly, a number of people I discuss this with on the forums, who want to see the Olivet Discourse about Antichrist, completely reject any notion of 70 AD in any of the versions! I'm glad you don't.

But I do think it's a bad idea to try to split the 3 versions into saying very different things. I've studied them all together, and find they are very much in agreement with one another. If Luke 21 referred to 70 AD, then so did Matt 24 and Mar 13. Just my opinion.

Well I agree context determines precise meanings. But the Olivet discourse is broken into two major themes. Matthews portion focuses more on teh end, while Lukes focuses more on the time from the birth of the church to the destruction of the temple. Remember the signal to flee in Matthew is the antichrist standing in the holy place and the 2nd half of the trib.

In luke it is the time when Jerusalem will be trodden down until the times of the Gentiles is fulfilled and in Matthew it is the time when the world will experience tribulation it has never seen.

 

[ewq1938]

I'm not a Partial Preterist, and never have been.

You are a PP, just slightly different than others. Anyone who believes most of the Olivet Discourse happened in the past is a PP.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Your argument is in promoting preterist, reformed eschatology, as per my observation and opinion

And in my opinion, your opinion is wrong. I'm promoting neither Preterism nor Reformed Theology. I'm interpreting a very specific passage of Scripture, the Olivet Discourse--not promoting a school of eschatology.

Matthew 24 is speaking to the "Future" church on earth in Jerusalem, those who are saved and being persecuted for the name of Jesus Christ

Mat 24 is speaking of the Jewish Punishment that lasts throughout the NT era, beginning in 70 AD and ending at the return of Christ. Part of the prophecy details how Jewish believers suffer under these conditions. And although this Discourse was given while still in the OT era and applicable to Israel, it can also apply in principle to all Christians in all nations.

The same conditions apply when Christian nations fall, like Israel did, and begin to persecute the true saints. Then those apostate nations come under God's judgment, just as Israel did in 70 AD.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The Path to All Truth:

It is understanding the difference between the finite terms of this world and that of eternity and the kingdom of God, that is referred to by Paul with the need of "rightly dividing the word of truth." This he said to advance our understand ("knowledge shall increase") in preparation for "all truth." This is what we are suppose to be doing during these times--not making scriptures secure and rigid like the Pharisees did with the law, but unleashing the power of God by the Holy Spirit, whom has been sent for this very purpose.

You have a very different way of looking at things, which is more akin to Gnosticism than to Christian Revelation. You pose knowledge in the form of a dichotomy between the transcendent and what we can understand. Actually, thinkers have understood this metaphysical problem for ages, thinking that finite man can only grasp the finite God through symbols.

But Christian Revelation has always opposed this limitation on our knowledge by declaring that God is *in* finite communications to Man, such that what is transcendent actually communicates directly through finite words divine truth that Man can comprehend. It is not a puzzle or riddle to be resolved, but rather truth that impresses itself both upon the mind and conscience of Man.

That is, the Holy Spirit is not interpreting things, but communicating things. He's not resolving riddles, but rather, informing our conscience what is right.

Prophecy is no less clear about what God is saying--it is not a riddle to be "spiritually interpreted." Yes, Paul spoke of a hidden wisdom, not at all referring to Gnosticism, but rather, to the experience that Christians choose to receive from God by revelation. Those who do not choose to receive that revelation obviously don't experience it, and thus that experience and truth is hidden from them. The certainty is gone.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You are a PP, just slightly different than others. Anyone who believes most of the Olivet Discourse happened in the past is a PP.

Sorry, you're no Webster. You shouldn't try to create your own definition of a word. That violates the principle that a word means what people generally use the word to mean.

"Partial Preterism" refers, by definition, to a school of eschatology that views most all future prophecy as fulfilled in the 1st century of the Church. Since my "difference" from PP is substantial, you have no right to tar me with the name, "Partial Preterist," though you obviously wish to do so out of spite.

Apparently your only defense is by trying to link me to PP, rather than address the fact that the Church Fathers held to the same position I do and could not have been termed "Partial Preterists?"

 

[Randy Kluth]

Yes you are Preterist in your interpretation of the Olivet discourse, in 70AD fulfillment

If that's all you have, I suppose you really don't have much, do you? You don't address the issues. You just want to link me to Preterism, which we both agree is wrong, so that you can claim I, like Preterism, is wrong.

But what is wrong about Preterism is a different matter--they are wrong as a school of eschatology, in my opinion, but they are not wrong that the Olivet Discourse is about the 70 AD judgment. Most scholars would agree with me that it was indeed about the 70 AD judgment without denying there is also a 2nd Coming.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Well I agree context determines precise meanings. But the Olivet discourse is broken into two major themes. Matthews portion focuses more on teh end, while Lukes focuses more on the time from the birth of the church to the destruction of the temple. Remember the signal to flee in Matthew is the antichrist standing in the holy place and the 2nd half of the trib.

In luke it is the time when Jerusalem will be trodden down until the times of the Gentiles is fulfilled and in Matthew it is the time when the world will experience tribulation it has never seen.

That's a reasonable position to take, and I used to take it. I can no longer hold to that position for the reasons already given. I've lined up the verses in each version of the Olivet Discourse, and both Matt 24 and Mark 13 line up exactly with Luke 17 and 21. There are no substantial differences. Two do not focus on the future, while one focused on the then-present. We'll have to agree to disagree, unless you want to see how I line these verses up?

 

[Randy Kluth]

There was no gift of tongues in the OT? Tongues as spoken of in Cornthians is a gift from the Holy Spirit given to the church.

And based on Scripture, what I believe is true.

I think you're right. However, the Gifts of the Spirit do seem to have OT counterparts, to some degree. For example, interpreting dreams may be similar to interpreting tongues.