Preterism misrepresents Scripture

[covenantee]

Why are you not allowing for the possibility that Jesus could have used words that are synonyms when discussing future things?

Because He was seeking to ensure that the end of Israel in 70AD, would not be confused with the end of the age at His Second Coming.

Wasn't that logical and reasonable?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Were 70AD and the destruction of Jerusalem and Israel of both local and global significance?

I would say it was mostly local. That event was all about God's wrath against unbelieving Jews. But, that is beside the point. If I believe that those things (wars, famines, earthquakes, etc.) relate to being signs of His approaching second coming at the end of the age rather than being things showing the approaching of the destruction of Jerusalem, how does that mean I believe His predictions were useless? I don't believe that. Yet, you claimed that, anyway.

 

[covenantee]

What does it mean to accept verse 34 as written? Does the word "genea", translated as "generation" in verse 34 have only one definition as preterists seem to think?

Futurists also think it has only one definition.

Here's what Strong thinks:

"the whole multitude of men living at the same time: Matthew 24:34"

 

[WPM]

I understand your point, but you seem unwilling to acknowledge that you were wrong about claiming that the word "sunteleia" means "end of the age". It doesn't.

I understand that every time Jesus used the word "sunteleia", He used it in conjunction with the word "aion". Is that proof that He would always do that whenever talking about "the end" that was in conjunction with His second coming? I don't believe so. It seems that if He wanted to use the word "end" rather than using the phrase "end of the age" then "telos" was His word of choice. If you have some kind of evidence to show that there is some rule that the word "sunteleia" is the only word that Jesus could possibly use to refer to "the end" that would come in conjunction with His second coming at the end of the age, then please share it. Otherwise, I remain unconvinced that He couldn't use two different words to refer to "the end" that is associated with His second coming.

Very well put!

He has not furnished us with anything concrete to support his thesis because it doesn't exist. All we have is his word for it. The Greek word itself means “the end.” He is adding unto Scripture to support his beliefs.

 

[covenantee]

I would say it was mostly local. That event was all about God's wrath against unbelieving Jews. But, that is beside the point. If I believe that those things (wars, famines, earthquakes, etc.) relate to being signs of His approaching second coming at the end of the age rather than being things showing the approaching of the destruction of Jerusalem, how does that mean I believe His predictions were useless? I don't believe that. Yet, you claimed that, anyway.

How could it have been mostly local if the entire Christian Church and much of the rest of the world up until today is aware of it?

 

[WPM]

Futurists also think it has only one definition.

Here's what Strong thinks:

"the whole multitude of men living at the same time: Matthew 24:34"

The word genea means:

1) fathered, birth, nativity
2) that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family
2a) the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy
2b) metaphorically a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character
2b1) especially in a bad sense, a perverse nation
3) the whole multitude of men living at the same time
4) an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied be each successive generation), a space of 30 - 33 years

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Because He was seeking to ensure that the end of Israel in 70AD, would not be confused with the end of the age at His Second Coming.

Wasn't that logical and reasonable?

Then why wouldn't He have said "the end of the temple buildings" (since spoke of their destruction/end) or "the end of Jerusalem" if He was trying to be "logical and reasonable"? Why didn't He say "To answer your first question..." followed by an answer to their first question and then later say "And now to answer your second question..." followed by an answer to their second question if He was intending to be as "logical and reasonable" as possible?

Why is it that you're unsure about what Matthew 24:29-31 is about if Jesus was being so logical and reasonable in what He was saying? Seems to me that Jesus was purposely not entirely clear (logical and reasonable) at times during the Olivet Discourse because He wanted His words to be spiritually discerned.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

How could it have been mostly local if the entire Christian Church and much of the rest of the world up until today is aware of it?

We're speaking from different perspectives here. I'm saying that what happened back then was mostly local. Was it not? Did the Roman armies attack other countries or was it Israel that they attacked? Did they destroy temple buildings and kill many people in some other city besides Jerusalem? Clearly, it was primarily a local event. That is my point. Do you see my point? How would a war, famine, earthquake, etc. hundreds or thousands of miles away be a sign that the time of the destruction that was coming in Jerusalem was getting closer?

 

[WPM]

Because He was seeking to ensure that the end of Israel in 70AD, would not be confused with the end of the age at His Second Coming.

Wasn't that logical and reasonable?

You need to study the history books. Physical Israel still existed after AD70. So, your whole logic doesn't add up. You are building one error upon another. You invent meanings of Greek words to support your position. This is what Full Preterist do. Ironically, you are advocating the same arguments here. You also invent a Mosaic age which is different to the old covenant. This whole thing is ludicrous.

On top of this: you avoid the biblical evidence that refutes your arguments.

It seems like you have nothing of substance to bring to the table.

 

[covenantee]

Is that proof that He would always do that whenever talking about "the end" that was in conjunction with His second coming? I don't believe so.

It is proof, based on Scripture and Scripture alone.

And on the reasonable and logical expectation that Christ would seek to eliminate confusion.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Futurists also think it has only one definition.

Here's what Strong thinks:

"the whole multitude of men living at the same time: Matthew 24:34"

I'm not a futurist or a preterist. They're all wrong to claim it only has one definition. The Greek word "genea" has more than one definition. Do I need to prove this to you or can you acknowledge that?

You indicated what Strong thinks. Key word there is "thinks". Even he would acknowledge that the word has more definitions than just that one.

 

[Truther]

Jerusalems destruction in 70AD had no events that were fulfilled Matthew chapter 24 "None" they are future events unfulfilled

Reformed preterist eschatology in 70AD fulfillment is a lie, just as dispensationalism's pre-trib rapture is a lie, no difference

Pre trib rapture is the truth.

You just don't want to see it.

I can prove Matt 24(Noah dialogue) is 1 Thes 4.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It is proof, based on Scripture and Scripture alone.

You have evidence that you base on Scripture and I can appreciate that. But, I don't consider it as proof since there are other words that are used in scripture, like "telos" to refer to the end that will occur when Jesus comes again. You don't think Jesus would use that word in that way, but I do. So be it.

And on the reasonable and logical expectation that Christ would seek to eliminate confusion.

If He sought to eliminate confusion then why are you confused about verses 29-31?

 

[rwb]

I don't see any indication at all that Jesus is not being literal in verses 4-14.

It's literally things that come upon the spiritual Kingdom of God as the Gospel is preached unto all the world. Don't forget Christ is speaking to His disciples about things in this age that will affect them, and in fact many to be martyred for their faith.

Many professing Christians among the body of Christ will be deceived by those who profess to be of Christ, who are not.

Literal war and rumors of war have always been. But the warfare that affects the disciples during this age that shall bring the disciples "great tribulation" are the on-going spiritual battles being waged between the forces for good and the forces for evil.

Throughout redemptive history we read of battling of kingdoms against kingdoms, both literal/physical as well as the spiritual battles between Satan and his minions and Christ and His disciples. There have also been literal famines, pestilences, and earthquakes at variou times and in various places. These all come as a result of the greatest famine/plague is of hearing the Word of God. Refusal to hear His Word results in consequences in the natural world.

I don't think it says that in order to indicate what follows is meant to be taken in a spiritual sense rather than literal. If verses 15-22 are meant to be taken in a spiritual sense then what was Jesus talking about when He said those in Judea should flee to the mountains? What did He mean when He indicated that the distress/tribulation He described and the need to flee from it would be particularly difficult for nursing mothers and pregnant women and that it would be particularly difficult during the winter or on the Sabbath?

I said these things written must be spiritually discerned. I did not say they are not literal or physical.

With that said, I think He was also partly referring to a future time before His coming at the end of the age during which wickedness would be greatly increased as well as the number of people turning away from the faith. Which is something Paul wrote about in 2 Thessalonians 2 as well. I see passages like those as referring to Satan's little season.

I would say what is written if for the disciples to understand in all the ages from the first to the last. I believe there are two possibilities for how we should understand "This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." It can either be that the nation of Israel will always remain until Christ returns, or "this generation" as evil shall be with us until Christ returns.

Where did Jesus indicate that the sign they were asking about would be the Holy Spirit they would receive?

It's not found in the discourse but is found to be truth from other passages and verses. I believe the focus was not a sign for when Christ would come again. Rather it is the SIGN itself that would be evidence that Christ would come again and that this world would have an end.

 

[covenantee]

You need to study the history books. Physical Israel still existed after AD70. So, your whole logic doesn't add up. You are building one error upon another. You invent meanings of Greek words to support your position. This is what Full Preterist do. Ironically, you are advocating the same arguments here. You also invent a Mosaic age which is different to the old covenant. This whole thing is ludicrous.

On top of this: you avoid the biblical evidence that refutes your arguments.

It seems like you have nothing of substance to bring to the table.

Define "physical Israel".

 

[covenantee]

You have evidence that you base on Scripture and I can appreciate that. But, I don't consider it as proof since there are other words that are used in scripture, like "telos" to refer to the end that will occur when Jesus comes again. You don't think Jesus would use that word in that way, but I do. So be it.


If He sought to eliminate confusion then why are you confused about verses 29-31?

You don't believe that Jesus is the best interpreter of Jesus?

I'm confused because I'm still human. What about you?

 

[rwb]

You seem to be under the impression that the word "sunteleias" means "end of the age". It does not. It means "end". So, there is not one instance where the word "sunteleias" is translated "end of the age", either. When the word "sunteleias" is used in scripture, it is also used in conjunction with the word "aion", but that is a separate word from "sunteleias". I don't see any reason that "the end" that will come when Jesus comes has to always be referred to with the word ""sunteleias". In fact, I previously showed cases in scripture where the word "telos" is used in relation to the end when Jesus comes (1 Cor 15:24 comes to mind).

This is not true. I don't know what translation you use, but my KJB writes "the end of the world" each time translating from the Greek word syntéleia. Below are a few

Matthew 13:39 (KJV) The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
Matthew 13:40 (KJV) As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
Matthew 13:49 (KJV) So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,
Matthew 13:49 (KJV) So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,
Matthew 24:3 (KJV) 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?
Matthew 28:20 (KJV) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

 

[covenantee]

He is adding unto Scripture to support his beliefs.

Jesus must have been adding unto Scripture when He added "aion" to His every use of "sunteleia".

 

[WPM]

Define "physical Israel".

Those who are of the natural offspring of David or who have attached them to such in a national sense.

Can you do the same?

 

[covenantee]

I'm not a futurist or a preterist. They're all wrong to claim it only has one definition. The Greek word "genea" has more than one definition. Do I need to prove this to you or can you acknowledge that?

You indicated what Strong thinks. Key word there is "thinks". Even he would acknowledge that the word has more definitions than just that one.

Certainly. The given definition is the definition applicable to Matthew 24:34.