Did Jesus return around 70 AD?

[Spiritual Israelite]

Christ's audience standing in front of Him in Matthew 16:27-28 included more than just the disciples.

You need to read all 3 accounts. When He was speaking in Matthew 16:27-28 He was talking specifically to the disciples.

Read the parallel account of this entire speech in Mark 8:34 through Mark 9:1. "And when he had called THE PEOPLE unto him with his disciples ALSO, he said unto them..." Christ continued speaking to THE PEOPLE along with His disciples when He said in Mark 9:1, "Verily I say unto you, that there be some of them that stand here which shall not taste of death till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power."

No. He said that only to the disciples. He was speaking of them specifically there.

Read the account from Luke 9...

Luke 9:18 And it happened, as He was alone praying, that His disciples joined Him, and He asked them, saying, “Who do the crowds say that I am?” 19 So they answered and said, “John the Baptist, but some say Elijah; and others say that one of the old prophets has risen again.” 20 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered and said, “The Christ of God.” 21 And He strictly warned and commanded them to tell this to no one, 22 saying, “The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.” 23 Then He said to them all, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me. 24 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will save it. 25 For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and is himself destroyed or lost? 26 For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, of him the Son of Man will be ashamed when He comes in His own glory, and in His Father’s, and of the holy angels. 27 But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the kingdom of God.”

Verse 18 follows the account of feeding the five thousand with the five loaves and two fish. Yes, they were still in the vicinity, but in the passage above He was talking specifically to the disciples who were gathered around Him separate from the rest of the people who were in the vicinity. Notice verse 18 says Jesus was alone praying, so He had gone away from the crowd at that point and disciples joined Him. This was in a separate place from the crowd that Jesus had fed. Keep reading from verse 18 and you can see that when Jesus said "But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the kingdom of God" He was talking to and about the disciples specifically there.

This is the same speech of Matthew 16:27-28, where Matthew records the added detail of Christ coming in the glory of His Father with His angels to give rewards to all according to their works when He came in His kingdom. Only some of that whole crowd of people with His disciples also would still be alive to see His return. Most would have died by then. Again, this death of the majority of the crowd of people standing in front of Jesus at that moment was NOT referring to the Mount of Transfiguration some six days later.

You are mistaken. He was only talking about the disciples there and He was not implying that some would be dead and some would be alive when He came again. That is your false assumption. He was simply saying that, despite what they may have thought, some of them (Peter, James and John) would indeed to get a glimpse of Him in power and glory before they died. And they did at His transfiguration.

See the above text of Mark 8:34 through Mark 9:1. It was a crowd of people standing in front of Christ PLUS the disciples also.

Why did you not look at the Luke 9 account which makes it clear that Jesus was talking to the disciples separately from the crowd when He said some of them would see the kingdom of God and Him in power?

The New Jerusalem's tree of life in Revelation 22:2 with its leaves intended for "the healing of the nations" is most definitely speaking of the healing of sins.

It most definitely is not. There will be no more death when the NHNE is ushered in, which implies no more sin.

Isaiah spoke of the New Jerusalem in Is. 33:24, saying, "the inhabitant shall not say, I am sick: for the people that dwell therein shall be forgiven their iniquity." Healing of the nations by the leaves of the tree of life is most definitely connected with one being forgiven of their iniquities. This means there are still sinners in need of healing in the NHNE.

You are mistaken. About many things.

 

[claninja]

Nonsense. All of scripture has to be taken into account to establish context. You have no clue of how to properly interpret scripture. None.

There’s a difference between reading one’s framework into a passage prior to deriving meaning from the passage within its own context (eisegesis) VERSUS deriving meaning from a passage within its own context and seeing how that aligns with a broader framework (exegesis)

You seem not to know the difference

We should do that AND consider the rest of scripture as well to ensure we are not causing contradictions in scripture. What is hard to understand about this?

But you are not doing that. Your external framework is first being applied in order to argue that revelation 20 is recapitulation, since you already admitted internal context can’t determine recapitulation. That’s literally classic eisesegis.

I asked Gemini: “would it be exegesis or eisegesis to apply external framework in order to argue revelation 20 is recapitulation without deriving that meaning from the text”

Answer:
“Applying a rigid external theological system to force a specific reading onto Revelation 20 is generally considered eisegesis, whereas identifying literary patterns from within the text itself is exegesis. The distinction hinges entirely on whether the framework is imposed upon the text or derived from it.

Eisegesis: "My theological system cannot allow a literal thousand-year reign on earth after Christ returns, so I will label chapter 20 as 'recapitulation' to make the problem go away."

Of course not.

Exactly! But that’s what you are doing with revelation 20. It’s mind boggling you can’t see that.

We have to look at everything and not make assumptions just based on a few similarities. But, you say that is eisegesis. What a joke. You are actually criticizing me for saying we have to be very diligent by looking at all of scripture and you try to say, no, we just need to look at the context of verses or passages in isolation from the rest of scripture. What nonsense.

Strawman. I’m not criticizing you for looking at a broader theological context. I’m criticizing your eisegesis of claiming revelation chapter 20 is recapitulation, not from internal contextual evidence, but because your external framework demands it.

Proper exegesis should be determining revelation 20 is recapitulation within its own internal context before applying it to a broader framework. But you l’ve already admitted you can’t do that.

You never indicate that you think it is important. You act as if the context can always be determined within any given verse or passage without the consideration of other scripture, but that is not always the case.

Seriously? I’m literally skeptical of 2 peter and revelation. How does that not scream evaluating passages in their own context and then seeing how that fits with a broader framework.

I have never said that it should.

You did with revelation 20 and determining whether it’s recapitulation or not

Yes, they are, if we're talking about frameworks in the sense of taking all of scripture into account to ensure there are no contradictions. You can't just interpret any given passage without taking the rest of scripture into account.

I agree that all of Scripture should inform our interpretation of individual passages. That's not what I'm disputing. The question is whether you're allowing the immediate literary and historical context to establish the meaning of a passage, or whether you're imposing a theological framework upon it beforehand and reinterpreting its language to accommodate that framework.

There's a significant difference between allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture and allowing a preconceived theological system to dictate what scripture is permitted to mean. You seem to be doing the latter, which can result in eisegesis.

Nonsense. You obviously don't believe in the concept of interpreting scripture with scripture, but that is very important. Sometimes you can't fully establish proper contextual exegesis of a given passage without bringing other scripture into consideration.

Strawman. I just don’t agree with your eisegetical method.

It's a vague reference. How would you even know if that was the case or not? We don't know what that even means for certain because no details regarding it were given. I tend to relate it to Satan's little season, but there's no real way of proving that.
Says you. That's your assumption. You like to talk about exegesis, but here you are basing an opinion on an assumption with no exegesis at all.
LOL! You can't be serious! It was Jesus Himself who made the claim! Are you saying you're skeptical of Jesus? My goodness, I cannot believe you are for real. Maybe I should just assume that you're not.

I’m skeptical of revelation, therefore I’m skeptical if Jesus made the claim.

“10Because you have kept My command to persevere, I will also keep you from the hour of testing that is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth. 11I am coming soon.d”


If we try to exegete it:

dating 95 ad. Authorship: someone named John (doesn’t claim to be apostle). Audience: church of Philadelphia in Asia. Surrounding context: warnings and commands to Churches in Asia/Christ is coming soon. Content: because the church of Philadelphia’s keeping of the commandments, they will be kept from hour of trial on the entire earth.

Ok, so John writes to the church of Philadelphia in Asia, around 95 ad, that they will be kept from a world wide hour of trial that will test the whole earth.

Now Let’s apply this to a broader framework, what world wide “trial” do gospels and epistles refer to if any?

The Preterist framework fails due to the belief that any “world wide hour of trial “ such as described in the OD was related to pre 70ad leading up to 70ad.

What broader framework does a futurist Amil apply this to ?

They had no reason to be. There's nothing written in the book that contradicts anything else in scripture. There are no prophecies in it that failed to be fulfilled as you try to claim. I can't deal with you anymore. You are very annoying. I don't want to discuss these things anymore with someone who doesn't even believe that the book of Revelation and the book of 2nd Peter are canon. It's a total waste of time. Your beliefs are based on a different Bible than the one I use.

They had plenty of reason to be and There are plenty of contradictions within the book.

But I understand when faced with information that can be difficult to process or conflicts with your worldview, that you often rely on ad hominems.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

There’s a difference between reading one’s framework into a passage prior to deriving meaning from the passage within its own context (eisegesis) VERSUS deriving meaning from a passage within its own context and seeing how that aligns with a broader framework (exegesis)

You seem not to know the difference

You seem not to know how important it is to not cause contradictions in scripture. You seem to think it makes sense to interpret passages in isolation from the rest of scripture.

But you are not doing that. Your external framework is first being applied in order to argue that revelation 20 is recapitulation, since you already admitted internal context can’t determine recapitulation. That’s literally classic eisesegis.

I asked Gemini: “would it be exegesis or eisegesis to apply external framework in order to argue revelation 20 is recapitulation without deriving that meaning from the text”

Answer:
“Applying a rigid external theological system to force a specific reading onto Revelation 20 is generally considered eisegesis, whereas identifying literary patterns from within the text itself is exegesis. The distinction hinges entirely on whether the framework is imposed upon the text or derived from it.

Eisegesis: "My theological system cannot allow a literal thousand-year reign on earth after Christ returns, so I will label chapter 20 as 'recapitulation' to make the problem go away."

Are you suggesting that it's exegesis to assume that what is written in Revelation 19 and 20 is chronological from beginning to end? If so, then you clearly have no clue about exegesis. Exegesis takes into account the genre of text within the book of Revelation and how the book is formatted. It clearly is not chronological throughout, with the clearest example of this being what is written at the end of Revelation 11 and beginning of Revelation 12. Obviously, Jesus was not born and did not ascend to heaven before the seventh trumpet sounded.

Exactly! But that’s what you are doing with revelation 20. It’s mind boggling you can’t see that.

I honestly could not care less what you find to be mind boggling. It boggles my mind that you would even take any time discussing the book of Revelation when you don't even believe it belongs in the canon.

Strawman. I’m not criticizing you for looking at a broader theological context. I’m criticizing your eisegesis of claiming revelation chapter 20 is recapitulation, not from internal contextual evidence, but because your external framework demands it.

Why is that something to be critical about? Yes, my examination and understanding of all scripture influences how I understand Revelation 20, but so what? There is no "internal contextual evidence" that prevents the possibility of recapitulation in Revelation 20.

Proper exegesis should be determining revelation 20 is recapitulation within its own internal context before applying it to a broader framework. But you l’ve already admitted you can’t do that.

No one can determine for certain what Revelation 20 means without the aid of other scripture. Why can't you understand that? It's impossible to exegete Revelation 20 in the way that you are demanding.

Seriously?

Do I come across as if I'm joking with you about this? Yes, seriously.

I’m literally skeptical of 2 peter and revelation.

You have no reason to be.

I agree that all of Scripture should inform our interpretation of individual passages. That's not what I'm disputing.

Okay, you agree with that. Good enough for me. I'm not wasting any more time debating with you about what is exegesis and what isn't. I know there is nothing wrong with the way I go about interpreting scripture and you can't change my mind about that.

The question is whether you're allowing the immediate literary and historical context to establish the meaning of a passage, or whether you're imposing a theological framework upon it beforehand and reinterpreting its language to accommodate that framework.

Is there something wrong with seeing many passages that indicate that Jesus began reigning after His resurrection and bringing that understanding into a passage like Revelation 20 that speaks about Jesus reigning in order to determine the timing of the passage? Revelation 20 itself is not specific about the timing, so why not allow other scripture to help determine that?

There's a significant difference between allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture and allowing a preconceived theological system to dictate what scripture is permitted to mean.

I don't think you even know the difference between those things.

You seem to be doing the latter, which can result in eisegesis.

You seem to not know what you're talking about, as usual.

Strawman. I just don’t agree with your eisegetical method.

That means nothing to me.

I’m skeptical of revelation, therefore I’m skeptical if Jesus made the claim.

“10Because you have kept My command to persevere, I will also keep you from the hour of testing that is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth. 11I am coming soon.d”

You need to learn what the Greek word "tachy" (Strong's G5035). It means immediately. Quickly. Do you think Jesus was intending to say that He was coming immediately after He said that? Of course not. What that means is that once He does come, which He hasn't yet, He will come quickly. As quickly as lightning flashes from the east to the west (Matthew 24:27). He's coming will be unexpected as a thief in the night (1 Thess 5:2-3, 2 Peter 3:10-12, Rev 16:15). It will happen very quickly with no one even having time to react.

If we try to exegete it:

dating 95 ad. Authorship: someone named John (doesn’t claim to be apostle). Audience: church of Philadelphia in Asia. Surrounding context: warnings and commands to Churches in Asia/Christ is coming soon. Content: because the church of Philadelphia’s keeping of the commandments, they will be kept from hour of trial on the entire earth.

Ok, so John writes to the church of Philadelphia in Asia, around 95 ad, that they will be kept from a world wide hour of trial that will test the whole earth.

Now Let’s apply this to a broader framework, what world wide “trial” do gospels and epistles refer to if any?

Some translations say "hour of temptation". I believe it could be referring to Satan's little season. To the time of unrestrained wickedness that Paul wrote about in 2 Thess 2:3-12 that will occur before Jesus returns. But, we just don't know for sure because it's a vague reference with no added details given about it. To conclude that it was a false prophecy because it didn't happen is ludicrous.

They had plenty of reason to be and There are plenty of contradictions within the book.

You are clueless. There are no contradictions within the book at all. Your lack understanding of the book is not a reason to make false accusations that it contains contradictions.

But I understand when faced with information that can be difficult to process or conflicts with your worldview, that you often rely on ad hominems.

Nothing you're saying is difficult to process at all. Your way of looking at scripture is completely off base.