Interesting preterist argument

[ewq1938]

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.

Yes but only nearness when they see the fig and all the other kinds of trees beginning to bud as they do in spring. It comes down to interpreting whether that happened and the generation saw all he events described, or whether no generation yet has seen them. Since the second coming and gathering of the elect by angels has not yet happened, we know no past generation was the generation spoken of.

 

[claninja]

Yes he gave an answer, but did not answer the first question.

i disagree. This is highly unlikely.

They did not say teh word for temple in their question. You are assuming that is what they meant. It is not an argument from silence to say Jesus did not speak of the temple being destroyed in the OD because he does not speak of it. It is not an event that happens alongside the other events.

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 from silence. would you also consistently argue that the OD is not about the end of the age because Jesus didn’t specifically mention the phrase end of the age in the OD? Or are you picking and choosing which things Jesus answered in the OD in order to support your framework?

Grammatically, The antecedent to “when will all these things happen” in Matthew 24:3 is found in vs 1-2 : not one stone will be upon another in regards to the temple complex. Grammatically and linguistically, it’s pretty clear the disciples asked about timing of the destruction of the temple.

In response to the disciples’question about “when” will the destruction of the temple be, jesus mentions that there would be an abomination of desolation, prophesied by Daniel, in the “holy place”. The “holy place”, linguistically, being another term for the temple as defined by thayer’s lexicon -

• a. of things which on account of some connection with God possess a certain distinction and claim to reverence, as places sacred to God which are not to be profaned, Acts 7:33; τόπος ἅγιος the temple, Matthew 24:15

Additionally, Jesus does answer the timing - “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place”

Historically, the temple was destroyed within Jesus’ generation.

False. It is a fact he did not speak about it. It is eisegesis on your part to take something taught at the temple and force it into the OD, despite it not being discussed in that discourse.

It’s not a “fact” that he did not speak of the temple, any more than it its a fact he did not speak of the end of the age.

Do you believe vs 4-31 are about the end of the age, despite Jesus never mentioning the term “end of the age”. If you do, your argument is inconsistent, which demonstrates your negotiation with the context is selective in order to uphold your framework - text book eisegesis.

 

[ewq1938]

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 from silence. would you also consistently argue that the OD is not about the end of the age because Jesus didn’t specifically mention the phrase end of the age in the OD? Or are you picking and choosing which things Jesus answered in the OD in order to support your framework?

An AFS would be someone claiming the Trinity is false because the bible doesn't use that word. An AFS is not an example of someone not speaking about a certain event. Christ predicted the destruction of the temple AT THE TEMPLE, but does not continue to discuss it in the OD. It is not part of the OD because it is not part of those end times events.

You are the one using an AFS as I will expose at the end of this post.

Historically, the temple was destroyed within Jesus’ generation.

It was not one of the events listed as being seen by one generation. That generation didn't see any of the OD events, but some (not many) lived to the time the Romans destroyed the temple.

It’s not a “fact” that he did not speak of the temple, any more than it its a fact he did not speak of the end of the age.

It's a fact he did not speak of the destruction of the temple in any part of the discourse on the mount.

Do you believe vs 4-31 are about the end of the age, despite Jesus never mentioning the term “end of the age”.

LOL, you are the one employing the argument from silence with that exact set of words. Only the concept is needed, not any exact wording.

He spoke of the end of the age here:

Mat_24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
Mat_24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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 emphasize severity, not literal global scope. Additionally, the point of the analogy seems to be more about suddenness, than global scope.

Wrong. In the past local event, Jesus was not using hyperbole. Literally no flesh would have been saved in Jerusalem in 70 AD if not for God's intervention. In the future global event of Christ's second coming no unbelievers will survive just as none survived the flood in Noah's day. That is not hyperbole. He said in relation to that event "heaven and earth will pass away" (Matt 24:35). We can see the same thing described in 2 Peter 3:10-12 where the heavens and the earth will be burned up when He returns. You have been duped by preterist false doctrine. It results in you denying clear, straightforward scripture.

 

[claninja]

An AFS would be someone claiming the Trinity is false because the bible doesn't use that word. An AFS is not an example of someone not speaking about a certain event. Christ predicted the destruction of the temple AT THE TEMPLE, but does not continue to discuss it in the OD. It is not part of the OD because it is not part of those end times events.

You are the one using an AFS as I will expose at the end of this post.

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 present in his answer. Both are text book examples of an argument from silence.

verse 4 explicitly states “Jesus answered them”. Verse 4 does not explicitly indicate Jesus excluded one of their questions. You are drawing that conclusion based on the word “temple” or the subjective concept phrase “temple destruction” being absent from vs 5-34. That is a textbook argument from silence.

that being said, The temple is mentioned in the olivet discourse - Matthew 24:15 - “the holy place”. Linguistically, lexicons define this as the temple building in the context of Matthew 24. The abomination of desolation standing in the temple triggering everyone to flee Judea so as to avoid great tribulation isn’t concept enough for temple destruction?

Contextually, I disagree based on the fact that Jesus answered the disciples’ questions, one of which was a question about temple destruction.

LOL, you are the one employing the argument from silence with that exact set of words. Only the concept is needed, not any exact wording.

He spoke of the end of the age here:

Mat_24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
Mat_24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

You’re absolutely correct — I’m intentionally using an argument from silence regarding the phrase “end of the age.” I’m glad you recognize that, because I’m simply mirroring your logic.

The word “end” in verse 3 (sunteleia) is not the same Greek word used in verses 13 and 14 (telos). More importantly, the exact phrase “end of the age” appears nowhere in Matthew 24:4–34. Therefore, using your standard, we would have to conclude that the concept of the end of the age is not taught in those verses.

Of course, you might say the “concept” is present — but that quickly becomes subjective. What you believe qualifies as the “concept” of the end of the age is no more definitive than what others believe qualifies as the “concept” of temple destruction. If you deny the first on that basis, you must deny the second as well,
Otherwise, your argument is arbitrary — you’re applying one standard of proof for your position, and a completely different standard when trying to dismiss mine. That’s special pleading, not sound exegesis.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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 present in his answer. Both are text book examples of an argument from silence.

verse 4 explicitly states “Jesus answered them”. Verse 4 does not explicitly indicate Jesus excluded one of their questions. You are drawing that conclusion based on the word “temple” or the subjective concept phrase “temple destruction” being absent from vs 5-34. That is a textbook argument from silence.

that being said, The temple is mentioned in the olivet discourse - Matthew 24:15 - “the holy place”. Linguistically, lexicons define this as the temple building in the context of Matthew 24. The abomination of desolation standing in the temple triggering everyone to flee Judea so as to avoid great tribulation isn’t concept enough for temple destruction?

Contextually, I disagree based on the fact that Jesus answered the disciples’ questions, one of which was a question about temple destruction.

I agree. And there's also Luke 21:20. Did Jesus really need to specifically mention the destruction of the temple buildings there in order to be referring to that? No. Obviously, the destruction and desolation of Jerusalem would include the temple buildings, so that goes without saying when it comes to Luke 21:20. Of course, Luke 21:20 is a parallel verse to Matthew 24:15. Luke worded it a bit differently simply because he was writing to a Gentile audience that would not have been familiar with the prophecy in Daniel. It obviously would not have made sense for him to tell the reader to understand something that they would not possibly have understood like the Jews who studied Daniel would.

 

[ewq1938]

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 present in his answer.

That's false. I don't care about specific terms, just the concept. There is nothing in the OD about the temple being destroyed.

that being said, The temple is mentioned in the olivet discourse - Matthew 24:15

Yes and that is another fallacy, the strawman because no one denies the temple is mentioned. However, it is not mentioned to be destroyed but polluted which is different.

You’re absolutely correct — I’m intentionally using an argument from silence regarding the phrase “end of the age.” I’m glad you recognize that, because I’m simply mirroring your logic.

But it is not based on any of my logic. You use this as a strawman when I in fact never requited any certain words or terms. When I say the temple is not said to be destroyed in the ODF as it was in AD70, it is a factual statement devoid of any fallacies.

 

[claninja]

That's false. I don't care about specific terms, just the concept. There is nothing in the OD about the temple being destroyed.




Yes and that is another fallacy, the strawman because no one denies the temple is mentioned. However, it is not mentioned to be destroyed but polluted which is different.





But it is not based on any of my logic. You use this as a strawman when I in fact never requited any certain words or terms.

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 of similar temple destruction as vs 2. That is, by definition, a textbook argument from silence.

And your claim that you’re only concerned with the concept, not specific terms, is demonstrably inconsistent and false. You reject Matthew 24:15 as part of Jesus’ answer to the disciples’ first question because it lacks the exact language that fits your personal definition of the concept due to your framework. In other words, your “concept” still depends on specific terms and words that YOU expect to see.

When I say the temple is not said to be destroyed in the ODF as it was in AD70, it is a factual statement devoid of any fallacies.

Wait, so just to clarify, because this statements a little confusing - You believe the olivet discourse does mention temple destruction, just not the same temple destruction as Matthew 24:2?

 

[claninja]

Wrong. In the past local event, Jesus was not using hyperbole.

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 tribulation than the “global” flood of Noah’s day?

You have been duped by preterist false doctrine. It results in you denying clear, straightforward scripture.

Subjective argument.

 

[claninja]

No, the invitation goes out up to then and continues after that. It's a parable, man. It's not as if all Jews rejected the invitation, but since most did, their city was destroyed. The parable is about the gospel invitation/offer to salvation which is still going on today. You can't even discern simple things. Preterism has blinded you.

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

 

[claninja]

I agree. And there's also Luke 21:20. Did Jesus really need to specifically mention the destruction of the temple buildings there in order to be referring to that? No. Obviously, the destruction and desolation of Jerusalem would include the temple buildings, so that goes without saying when it comes to Luke 21:20. Of course, Luke 21:20 is a parallel verse to Matthew 24:15. Luke worded it a bit differently simply because he was writing to a Gentile audience that would not have been familiar with the prophecy in Daniel. It obviously would not have made sense for him to tell the reader to understand something that they would not possibly have understood like the Jews who studied Daniel would.

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

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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 tribulation than the “global” flood of Noah’s day?

You are misinterpreting the verse. Amazingly, you are doing the same thing that Davidpt does with that verse by thinking Jesus was saying it would be a time of great tribulation greater in scope than any other. Agreeing with him about that should be embarrassing for you since he interprets everything with doctrinal bias. Jesus did not say it would be a tribulation greater in scope than any other. He is saying that it would be unlike any other tribulation.

 

[claninja]

Yes but only nearness when they see the fig and all the other kinds of trees beginning to bud as they do in spring. It comes down to interpreting whether that happened and the generation saw all he events described, or whether no generation yet has seen them. Since the second coming and gathering of the elect by angels has not yet happened, we know no past generation was the generation spoken of.

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 the door”.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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

You clearly have no idea of what the parable is about. It's about the preaching of the gospel and the offer of salvation that started in Israel before going to the Gentiles. The gospel is obviously still being preached today. Many are still being called to salvation today. That will continue until Jesus returns, at which point all who are truly His will enter eternity with Him in the new heavens and new earth while unbelievers will all be cast into "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matt 25:41), otherwise known as "the lake of fire" (Rev 20:15). A place where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matt 13:42, Matthew 13:50).

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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 the door”.

Jesus did not come in 70 AD and the elect were not gathered in 70 AD and you cannot get around that no matter what you do. He will come in the future and the elect will be gathered and caught up to meet Him in the air at that time (1 Thessalonians 4:14-17).

 

[claninja]

You are misinterpreting the verse. Amazingly, you are doing the same thing that Davidpt does with that verse by thinking Jesus was saying it would be a time of great tribulation greater in scope than any other. Agreeing with him about that should be embarrassing for you since he interprets everything with doctrinal bias. Jesus did not say it would be a tribulation greater in scope than any other. He is saying that it would be unlike any other

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 you believe the severity of tribulation of Jerusalem in 66-70ad, was greater than the tribulation of the “global” flood.

 

[claninja]

You clearly have no idea of what the parable is about. It's about the preaching of the gospel and the offer of salvation that started in Israel before going to the Gentiles. The gospel is obviously still being preached today. Many are still being called to salvation today. That will continue until Jesus returns, at which point all who are truly His will enter eternity with Him in the new heavens and new earth while unbelievers will all be cast into "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matt 25:41), otherwise known as "the lake of fire" (Rev 20:15). A place where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matt 13:42, Matthew 13:50)

It’s a GATHERING of good and bad into the wedding hall after the destruction of the city.

Jesus did not come in 70 AD and the elect were not gathered in 70 AD and you cannot get around that no matter what you do. He will come in the future and the elect will be gathered and caught up to meet Him in the air at that time (1 Thessalonians 4:14-17).

Only according to your subjective framework.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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.

No, it is not. You apparently need to take grammar and linguistics lessons.

That’s not a misrepresentation of the verse.

Yes, it is. He was saying that it would be unlike any other great tribulation without saying anything about the scope of it. He did not say it would be greater than any other great tribulation. Why are you trying to make a fool out of Jesus? Clearly, no tribulation could be greater than the flood, so why would He say there would be a greater tribulation than that?

Do you believe the severity of tribulation of Jerusalem in 66-70ad, was greater than the tribulation of the “global” flood.

No, but that isn't what the verse says, so it's a pointless question. There has never been any other time of tribulation anywhere like what happened in Judea and Jerusalem in 70 AD.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It’s a GATHERING of good and bad into the wedding hall after the destruction of the city.

No, it is not. It's an going invitation to a wedding that people choose to either accept or reject. How can you not discern that it's related to the preaching of the gospel and offer of salvation? That should be obvious. And that is still going on today. The guest that it talks about as not having on the proper wedding attire represents someone who claims to be a believer, but they are found to not be a true believer so they are cast into outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. That is what will happen at the judgment when Jesus returns on the future to those who say "Lord, Lord, didn't we do these great things for you?" and He will tell them that He doesn't know them.

 

[Davy]

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.

Like I had said before brethren in Christ, claninja doesn't actually know what the Jeremiah 24 chapter is about regarding the 'parable of the fig tree.'