You are missing my point. I said redundant because of the way it was explained. Its redundant to say "the generation that sees all these things will not pass away until all these things occur".
And you are missing my point that by looking at it that way you must think that Jesus was being redundant in Matthew 23:36.
After further reviewing several lexicons and usages, I can concede, that grammatically, "this" is ambiguous enough to point spatially near to Jesus contemporary audience OR contextually near to those living through Matthew 24:4-33
Thank you for at least acknowledging that. We need more of that on this forum. So many times people deny even the possibility that the person they are debating could be correct even though that is usually not the case. Obviously, I argue a lot against Premillennialism, but you won't ever see me claiming that it's not even possible.
Right, but we also don't want to fall into the "over harmonization fallacy"
(
Exegetical Fallacies in the Greek New Testament - New Testament Greek)
It's funny how you think you need to educate me on things like this. You do not.
Matthew doesn't include "pray that you have to the strength to escape all these things", which includes the gathering. Luke does contain "pray that you have the strength to escape all these things", which does not contain the gathering. The authors are making different points. Attempting to harmonize these to a T can result in the over harmonization fallacy.
Are you forgetting that Matthew, Mark and Luke were quoting things that Jesus said rather than making their own comments? What Jesus said in Luke 21:36 came after He talked about His coming and the gathering of the elect. In your view, "all these things" include everything He previously talked about. You can't then try to argue that "all these things" only include previous things He said in Luke 21, but not in Matthew 24 and Mark 13. That's not a valid argument at all. That's like trying to say that Luke 21 is an entirely separate Olivet Discourse from Matthew 24-25 and Mark 13.
I'm saying they are both about judgement, and the analogy doesn't need be identical in scope or scale or literalness.
I already acknowledged that an analogy doesn't need to be identical in scope or scale, but I believe it has to be identical in literalness. What evidence do you have to show otherwise? But, if that was true, then why did Peter say in 2 Peter 3:7 "by the same word" the heavens and earth were reserved for fire right after referring to the flood waters of Noah's day in the previous verse? And how can comparing "the world that then was" to "the heavens and earth which are now" in 2 Peter 3:6-7 not be a comparison of things of the same type, as in them both being literal? There is just no indication at all there that he wasn't comparing events of the same type and scope.
Jesus made the same comparison that Peter did between what will happen unexpectedly at His second coming in relation to heaven and earth with what happened in the flood and, like Peter, He also gave no indication that He wasn't comparing events of the same type (literal).
Matthew 24:35
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. 37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until
the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
