Mat 24

[Jess]

Hi Mellontes,

Re: Matt 24:3 "And as He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples same to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming, and of the end of the age?"

Compare to Luke 21:7 And they questioned Him saying, "Teacher, when therefore will these things be? And what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?"

And to Mark 13:4 "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are going to be fulfilled?"

So the different phrases used by the three different authors are expressing the same general idea. That is, "What will be the sign of your coming" and "What will be the sign when these things are about to take place?" and "What will be the sign when all these things are going to be fulfilled?" are basically equivalent expressions. Matthew, writing to a Jewish audience, would have used a phrase with which his readers would be familiar and which carried a particular meaning for them, very likely more of an exact quote (or nearly so) than either Mark or especially Luke whose audiences wouldn't be expected to understand Jewish idioms and their meanings. Luke, writing to Theolphilus who would not be expected to know much about Jewish imagery, paraphrases the question "when will these things take place? The things he is referring to are the same things that Jesus mentioned in the opening of the conversation, i.e. "when will the temple be torn down?"

In my opinion, therefore, when Matthew uses the phrase "Your coming and the end of the age" he is not necessarily speaking of Jesus' second coming at the end of time. Again the disciples would not have interpreted it this way, not knowing yet of His departure.

Jess

[Mellontes]

Hi Mellontes,

Re: Matt 24:3 "And as He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples same to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming, and of the end of the age?"

Compare to Luke 21:7 And they questioned Him saying, "Teacher, when therefore will these things be? And what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?"

And to Mark 13:4 "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are going to be fulfilled?"

So the different phrases used by the three different authors are expressing the same general idea. That is, "What will be the sign of your coming" and "What will be the sign when these things are about to take place?" and "What will be the sign when all these things are going to be fulfilled?" are basically equivalent expressions. Matthew, writing to a Jewish audience, would have used a phrase with which his readers would be familiar and which carried a particular meaning for them, very likely more of an exact quote (or nearly so) than either Mark or especially Luke whose audiences wouldn't be expected to understand Jewish idioms and their meanings. Luke, writing to Theolphilus who would not be expected to know much about Jewish imagery, paraphrases the question "when will these things take place? The things he is referring to are the same things that Jesus mentioned in the opening of the conversation, i.e. "when will the temple be torn down?"

In my opinion, therefore, when Matthew uses the phrase "Your coming and the end of the age" he is not necessarily speaking of Jesus' second coming at the end of time. Again the disciples would not have interpreted it this way, not knowing yet of His departure.

Jess

This is, of course, based on the presupposition that His coming is in the future - and it is never referenced as an "end of time" event. It is the "time of the end" as expressed by DAniel (Daniel 8:17; 11:35, 40; 12:4, 9) - also speaking in Jewish terms...

When one presupposes these tow events as being different, then, I guess, anything goes. The focus is strictly upon the events forecast in Matthew 23.
The Parousia event is the prophecied destruction of the temple! Nothing more, nothing less. Well, a few more events if you understand Daniel 12 in relation to these things...

Couple this with the usage of "mello" in Mark 13 and Luke 21 and if even gets further clarified. But there is no point continuing, it would seem that your heart is already fixed.

[Jess]

Hi again Mellontes,

You wrote:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
This is, of course, based on the presupposition that His coming is in the future - and it is never referenced as an "end of time" event. It is the "time of the end" as expressed by DAniel (Daniel 8:17; 11:35, 40; 12:4, 9) - also speaking in Jewish terms...

When one presupposes these tow events as being different, then, I guess, anything goes. The focus is strictly upon the events forecast in Matthew 23.
The Parousia event is the prophecied destruction of the temple! Nothing more, nothing less. Well, a few more events if you understand Daniel 12 in relation to these things...

Couple this with the usage of "mello" in Mark 13 and Luke 21 and if even gets further clarified. But there is no point continuing, it would seem that your heart is already fixed.
Mellontes
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

First, please don't accuse me of having my mind made up ("fixed heart". I assume that is what you mean?). It is not. I am certainly open to learn and correct my thinking where ever it is in error. Certainly there are ways I currently understand things but that doesn't mean I don't change or "my heart is already fixed".

Second, as I review this entire thread it wasn't clear to me that, by "parousia", you mean the events leading up to and including 70 a.d. and not His still future return. Sorry for my misunderstanding.

Third, I think we probably interpret Daniel similarly, if indeed you see it as predicting the ultimate downfall of Israel and not some still future (to our time) event.

Fourth, I am not a Greek scholar and do not know what your reference to "mello" in Mark and Luke signifies but I am willing to learn.

Fifth, WRT Daniel:

8:17....the time of the end
11:35....the end time
11:40....the end time
12:4.....the end of time
12:9.....the end time

I would suspect that, despite his different wording, Daniel is referring to the same event/s, and, at least in NASB, he even uses the phrase "end of time" on one occasion. So I guess I don't understand your point. Sorry if I am a bit slow. My use of the phrase "end of time" in my previous post was not meant to be a reference to any particular scripture, just a way of describing that point in our future when Christ will return to judge and the new heavens and earth arrive on the scene (what most people mean when they talk of His second coming or parousia). Do I think that is what Jesus is describing in Matt. 24 (at least the part we have been discussing)? No.

In HIm (and willing to learn)

Jess

[Mellontes]

Hi again Mellontes,

You wrote:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
This is, of course, based on the presupposition that His coming is in the future - and it is never referenced as an "end of time" event. It is the "time of the end" as expressed by DAniel (Daniel 8:17; 11:35, 40; 12:4, 9) - also speaking in Jewish terms...

When one presupposes these tow events as being different, then, I guess, anything goes. The focus is strictly upon the events forecast in Matthew 23.
The Parousia event is the prophecied destruction of the temple! Nothing more, nothing less. Well, a few more events if you understand Daniel 12 in relation to these things...

Couple this with the usage of "mello" in Mark 13 and Luke 21 and if even gets further clarified. But there is no point continuing, it would seem that your heart is already fixed.
Mellontes
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

First, please don't accuse me of having my mind made up ("fixed heart". I assume that is what you mean?). It is not. I am certainly open to learn and correct my thinking where ever it is in error. Certainly there are ways I currently understand things but that doesn't mean I don't change or "my heart is already fixed".

Second, as I review this entire thread it wasn't clear to me that, by "parousia", you mean the events leading up to and including 70 a.d. and not His still future return. Sorry for my misunderstanding.

Third, I think we probably interpret Daniel similarly, if indeed you see it as predicting the ultimate downfall of Israel and not some still future (to our time) event.

Fourth, I am not a Greek scholar and do not know what your reference to "mello" in Mark and Luke signifies but I am willing to learn.

Fifth, WRT Daniel:

8:17....the time of the end
11:35....the end time
11:40....the end time
12:4.....the end of time
12:9.....the end time

I would suspect that, despite his different wording, Daniel is referring to the same event/s, and, at least in NASB, he even uses the phrase "end of time" on one occasion. So I guess I don't understand your point. Sorry if I am a bit slow. My use of the phrase "end of time" in my previous post was not meant to be a reference to any particular scripture, just a way of describing that point in our future when Christ will return to judge and the new heavens and earth arrive on the scene (what most people mean when they talk of His second coming or parousia). Do I think that is what Jesus is describing in Matt. 24 (at least the part we have been discussing)? No.

In HIm (and willing to learn)

Jess

I said it would "seem" that your heart is fixed - and that was in relation to a future Parousia coming. You call it an accusation. Thank you so much for that...I can't tell you how much I appreciate it.

But once again, you are using your presuppositions as a basis or foundation of fact. Let me quote you:

"by 'parousia', you mean the events leading up to and including 70 a.d. and not His still future return."

Please show me the Scriptures that indicate to you that your Parousia event is still future. How many Parousia events do you believe the NT talks about? Where is the difference described? Why didn't Jesus tell His disciples that the topic had completely changed from the question originally asked?

I believe the timing of the NT is very clear to the nearness of His coming. I believe that the Parousia occurs at the destruction of Jerusalem. Notice that I did not say IS the destruction of Jerusalem, although that is certainly a part of the end-times. The last days have absolutely ZERO to do with the end of history. The issue is that I believe timing determines nature. You believe nature determines timing. And since you believe in a physical presence of the Lord at His coming (as most do) and that the believers are physically resurrected (as most do), and that physical death has not been done away with (as most believe), then it can't be possible that the Parousia has happened. The 70 AD instance is relegated as a practice session or a type of His coming, but certainly not the real deal. We believe that the nature of these end-time events are in error.

In previous judgment comings of the Lord in the OT, His physical presence was never required.
The death that is done away with is the Hadean death, and not physical death. Another death that is done away with is sin death, but that ONLY IN JESUS CHRIST.
The resurrection is not a physical one, but a spiritual one, as was Christ's (Acts 2:31). The only reason (I think) that Christ's soul was placed back into His original body was so that people could physically see that Christ returned from the grave - not Joseph of Arimathaea's tomb, but the hadean realm, where departed spirits went. How could they see what happened in the spiritual realm without the attached physical proof? It is not the physical body that gets redeemed; it is the soul that gets redeemed. The person part is not the dead body part but the departed soul part. Ask any preacher who conducts a funeral. They "all" say that so-and-so has departed and gone (usually) to a better place - yet the deceased body is right in front of them. No one believes the person part is the dead body part, except in a physical resurrection paradigm. Think about it.
Their are many other forums where these things are argued about. Here is one: http://www.christiandiscussionforums.or ... .php?f=173

In the above suggested forum, the disgusting treatment of Christians who happen to believe in preterism (with varying views as in all Christianity) by those opposed to this position will become VERY evident. There are many excellent posts by preterists and probably twice as many disgusting and demeaning posts by those opposed (PaulT, MillennialSaint, RoderickE, Elffinagain, Hitch). The forum allows them to get away with some of the most vile language, and yet, if we even sneeze in the wrong direction we are suspended. They have moved the original forum from eschatology (which preterism is devoted to) and given it a special section under "movements." Even the owner of the forum (Matt Slick) is allowed to say the most disgusting and derogatory things - all because he has a different view.

Anyway, after 22 years of dispensationalism and all their "physical" fulfillments...ie the nation of Israel inheriting the kingdom, when the fulfillment is completely in Jesus Christ, plus countless others, I finally found freedom in believeing that what Jesus said He would do, He did do, and a longggggggg time ago. Blessed be the Lord of Hosts. I can't say anything else that I haven't mentioned at some time or another on this forum. Everyone has to come to their own decisions and I for one can't help one iota...

[Douglas]

Heya Mellontes,

You believe that "the end" in Matt 24:13 is not physical death, but AD70.... as you have stated above.

I am of the understanding that all of Jesus' disciples except John had died prior to AD70. So they obviously didn't "endure till the end" as you would confirm by your understanding of Matt 24:13 "But he who endures to the end shall be saved"

So was John the only disciple that was saved according to your understanding?

Enduring to the end" and "he that overcometh" have got to be two of the most wonderful phrases

[Mellontes]

Heya Mellontes,

You believe that "the end" in Matt 24:13 is not physical death, but AD70.... as you have stated above.

I am of the understanding that all of Jesus' disciples except John had died prior to AD70. So they obviously didn't "endure till the end" as you would confirm by your understanding of Matt 24:13 "But he who endures to the end shall be saved"

So was John the only disciple that was saved according to your understanding?

Enduring to the end" and "he that overcometh" have got to be two of the most wonderful phrases

Your understanding of my understanding may be quite different. Perhaps this is why there is some difficulty...

You take "enduring to the end" as a conditional statement. I take it as an all-encompassing statement. To me, it seems to say "even for those who live through this terrible ordeal," that they too shall be saved. And I am not so sure that this "saved" has anything to do with salvation from sin, but rather a general deliverance, as used in other portions of the NT - but I won't be so dogmatic on that. To me, it is like a "no penalty clause" for surviving. And why you seem to only include the disciples and not all believers in this is interesting. What about all those who fled to Pella likely in response to the words of the Lord Jesus from Matthew 24:15-16, Mark 13:14, and Luke 21:20-21? There is a strong connection with Pella and the Dead Sea Scrolls...not that I am attempting to use history to prove a point.

And if you are truly of the understanding that John (as in the beloved disciple) lived past AD 70, then what is your interpretation of the following passage?

John 21:20-22 - Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? 21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? 22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.

Even the Mormons, in their attempt to hold to the integrity of the Scripture, believe that the beloved apostle is still alive...somewhere. I am very interested in what you believe this passage means.

Blessings

[Douglas]

Excellent response mellontes,

To me, it is like a "no penalty clause" for surviving.

I am not exactly sure what "no penalty" you might be thinking of for a disciple of Christ that did survive until AD70.

And why you seem to only include the disciples and not all believers in this is interesting.

I believe that the statement in Matt 24:13 was directed to ALL his believers. I was only focusing on the disciples in particular to make a point regarding your understanding of Matt 24:13 and of those disciples who we know from history did not "endure" till AD70 and therefore were NOT saved in your understanding. I believe Jesus was speaking of salvation, and figured you did as well considering your statement.

Mellontes wrote:
Enduring to the end" and "he that overcometh" have got to be two of the most wonderful phrases

It appears you have changed your opinion of "enduring to the end" to be nothing more than "making it to AD70". Now you are saying it is not a salvation thing?

And I am not so sure that this "saved" has anything to do with salvation from sin, but rather a general deliverance, as used in other portions of the NT - but I won't be so dogmatic on that.

And Dude, come on now, I am not a mormon and therefore do not believe John is still physically alive roaming around on the earth somewhere. You should know me better than that by now. Or are you just getting frustrated with me and decided to take a jab. Low blow brother.

Jesus didn't say that John would or would not physically live until He comes, He just said to Peter, don't worry about him, you follow Me.

[Mellontes]

Excellent response mellontes,

To me, it is like a "no penalty clause" for surviving.

I am not exactly sure what "no penalty" you might be thinking of for a disciple of Christ that did survive until AD70.

And why you seem to only include the disciples and not all believers in this is interesting.

I believe that the statement in Matt 24:13 was directed to ALL his believers. I was only focusing on the disciples in particular to make a point regarding your understanding of Matt 24:13 and of those disciples who we know from history did not "endure" till AD70 and therefore were NOT saved in your understanding. I believe Jesus was speaking of salvation, and figured you did as well considering your statement.

Mellontes wrote:
Enduring to the end" and "he that overcometh" have got to be two of the most wonderful phrases

It appears you have changed your opinion of "enduring to the end" to be nothing more than "making it to AD70". Now you are saying it is not a salvation thing?

And I am not so sure that this "saved" has anything to do with salvation from sin, but rather a general deliverance, as used in other portions of the NT - but I won't be so dogmatic on that.

And Dude, come on now, I am not a mormon and therefore do not believe John is still physically alive roaming around on the earth somewhere. You should know me better than that by now. Or are you just getting frustrated with me and decided to take a jab. Low blow brother.

Jesus didn't say that John would or would not physically live until He comes, He just said to Peter, don't worry about him, you follow Me.

Looks like I am leaving these discussions...people have become much too defensive.
No low blows were made and none were intended. Even the Mormons understand the passage correctly. And to keep it correct, they must assume that either the beloved disciple is still alive or admit to it being possible that he could have been alive at Christ's coming. The futurists don't admit to the beloved disciple being still alive (thankfully) but neither will they admit to the other consequence especially in light of Matthew 16:28. Apparently, I hold a much higher view of Jesus' words (at least that is what I see) because I don't believe, not for even one nanosecond, that Jesus told Peter something could have been possible IF it was not possible. Millions of futurists disagree and that is their entitlement.

[Douglas]

Melontes, don't leave!! we are learning much. No offense was taken and none was meant by me as well.

I realy don't think John 21:20-21 says that Jesus is telling Peter that John WILL be alive at His coming, but IF He willed it to be, then it would be. To try to be as clear as possible, I do think John was alive at Christ coming in 70 AD. If he was or was not, that was not the point that Jesus was making.... Look closely at the passage again and notice the BIG IF.....

John 21:20-22 - Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? 21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? 22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.

Now, If I have not offended you brother, please, please let me know what you think about these 2 questions I posed in my last post that were not addressed.

1. What exactly is the "no penalty clause" for surviving you are talking about in regards to Matt 24:13? a concept I have never heard before.

2. Do you understand the "saved" in Matt 24:13 to be salvation or mere deliverance from persecution in AD70? Your answers so far have hinted at both, of which maybe they are

I greatly desire to understand how a full preterist continues to keep AD 70 the one and ONLY "end" being talked about when verse 13 appears to be talking about a physical death as well. The focus of Matt 24 is AD 70 and the destruction of Jerusalem, and the end of the age, as I think we would both agree, but I think there is another end that is also being discussed that would not be understood by the disciples until after the resurrection. I think Jesus was using the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 as an example of Christs individual coming for each person at the end their lives. It is just a thought I have, and it could be wrong. I am willing to learn and change.... are you?

[Conquest]

Hi again Mellontes,

You wrote:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
This is, of course, based on the presupposition that His coming is in the future - and it is never referenced as an "end of time" event. It is the "time of the end" as expressed by DAniel (Daniel 8:17; 11:35, 40; 12:4, 9) - also speaking in Jewish terms...

When one presupposes these tow events as being different, then, I guess, anything goes. The focus is strictly upon the events forecast in Matthew 23.
The Parousia event is the prophecied destruction of the temple! Nothing more, nothing less. Well, a few more events if you understand Daniel 12 in relation to these things...

Couple this with the usage of "mello" in Mark 13 and Luke 21 and if even gets further clarified. But there is no point continuing, it would seem that your heart is already fixed.
Mellontes
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

First, please don't accuse me of having my mind made up ("fixed heart". I assume that is what you mean?). It is not. I am certainly open to learn and correct my thinking where ever it is in error. Certainly there are ways I currently understand things but that doesn't mean I don't change or "my heart is already fixed".

Second, as I review this entire thread it wasn't clear to me that, by "parousia", you mean the events leading up to and including 70 a.d. and not His still future return. Sorry for my misunderstanding.

Third, I think we probably interpret Daniel similarly, if indeed you see it as predicting the ultimate downfall of Israel and not some still future (to our time) event.

Fourth, I am not a Greek scholar and do not know what your reference to "mello" in Mark and Luke signifies but I am willing to learn.

Fifth, WRT Daniel:

8:17....the time of the end
11:35....the end time
11:40....the end time
12:4.....the end of time
12:9.....the end time

I would suspect that, despite his different wording, Daniel is referring to the same event/s, and, at least in NASB, he even uses the phrase "end of time" on one occasion. So I guess I don't understand your point. Sorry if I am a bit slow. My use of the phrase "end of time" in my previous post was not meant to be a reference to any particular scripture, just a way of describing that point in our future when Christ will return to judge and the new heavens and earth arrive on the scene (what most people mean when they talk of His second coming or parousia). Do I think that is what Jesus is describing in Matt. 24 (at least the part we have been discussing)? No.

In HIm (and willing to learn)

Jess

It is my understanding there is another view that it doesn't appear you have taken into account, at least I don't see where you make reference to Dan 7:13, 14 in the above verses. How do you know the "coming of the Son of man" in the Olivet discourse isn't tied to Dan 7:13,14 when the Son of man is dipicted coming up to the Ancient of Days?

Conquest