Doctrine of imminent return & pre trib

[divaD]

No, you're right. I'm not likely to change my mind because I don't think I *should* change my mind. Why on earth should I change the meaning of the words "this generation?" Have you ever considered that *you* might be the one who is wrong here? Have you ever thought that because you have those words wrong that you read everything else in this Discourse wrong, as well?

The "false Christs" and "false prophets" that Jesus referred to were not the Antichrist! They were the Jews of his day who presented themselves as the Kingdom of God. After all, under the Law that's who they were supposed to be!

However, in rejecting Jesus as the true Christ they were making themselves a false Christ. It was the unbelieving Jewish leaders who became the "false Christs" and "false prophets" Jesus was speaking of. And if you are open-minded at all, perhaps you will hear more evidence on this idea? Or, is it *you* who are closed-minded?

The text says this generation shall not pass till all these thing be fulfilled, which includes the fake great signs and wonders. There were no fake signs and wonders happening at that time, yet your interpretation claims there was. You're highly intelligent, so why can't you grasp when something has been debunked? This has nothing to do with being closedminded, it has to with when things are not fitting, that means there is something wrong with that interpretation. There was no AOD 2000 years ago in the first century. Yet another reason I have to reject this interpretation. But if there was an AOD back then, why hasn't a single person shown exactly what it was?

BTW, I'm not saying none of the Discourse didn't apply to anyone back then. Obviously some of it did. But the part about the AOD, the part about this generation, the part about fake great signs and wonders, none of these things applied to any of them back then. The part about the great signs and wonders is meaning Revelation 13, 2 Thess 2, and that these are endtimes events, and not something that already took place 2000 years ago.

Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.


Which clearly includes these endtimes events below, the very same endtimes events Matthew 24:24 makes mention of.

Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

2 Thessalonians 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

Revelation 13:13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.

Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

The above is the correct chronology. Matthew 24:34 does not precede those other 3 passages, it follows after their fulfillments.

[divaD]

Paul was, as I've said before, saying that certain things must happen before the Day of the Lord. The "Day of the Lord" here is, of course, the day in which Christ returns for the Church. So, before the Day of the Lord's Coming for his Church, certain things must happen.

Among the things that must happen first is the revelation of Antichrist. The reason Paul is saying that is because in *Dan 7* the Antichrist is shown to be destroyed *at* Christ's Coming, ie at the coming of Christ's Kingdom. Christ is the "Son of Man," coming on the clouds of heaven, and by the judgment of heaven he comes to destroy the "little horn," the Antichrist.

Paul also likely knew very well that in the Olivet Discourse Jesus had predicted deceivers first, before the Coming of the Lord. The Apostle John said "as you have heard Antichrist is coming, so already there have been many antichrists."

So yes, Paul referred, at least in part, to the "false Christs and false prophets" of his own day, which Jesus indicated already existed. When Jesus had said these words he was likely speaking of the Jewish leaders who had rejected him as the Christ. They presented the "false Christ" of Rabbinic Judaism. And they presented the "false prophet" of zealotry, encouraging resistance to the Romans.

We often read in the modern Eschatology of our day of "false Christs," thinking "the Antichrist." Or, we think of the "false prophet" as the false prophet of Mary Baker Eddy, or Joseph Smith.

However, in Jesus' day, the false Christ and the false prophets were Rabbinic Judaism, which was clearly turning against Jesus. They wanted to crucify him.

If you don't like this view, fine. I don't care for the mockery, but it is what it is. Doesn't prove a thing either way.

Why do you see it as mockery if one challenges your view? I'm not saying everything you conclude about the Discourse is incorrect. But the more obvious parts, the ones that you apply to 2000 years ago, rather than post that time, such as the AOD, this generation, your interpretation of those parts are not correct for certain.

[Johosophat]

Why do you see it as mockery if one challenges your view? I'm not saying everything you conclude about the Discourse is incorrect. But the more obvious parts, the ones that you apply to 2000 years ago, rather than post that time, such as the AOD, this generation, your interpretation of those parts are not correct for certain.

I think he takes it a little too personally at times.

I agree its clear he is incorrect about some rather obvious parts that were not fulfilled 2000 years ago. He has decided he can morph them into fitting though, and seems pretty hard core about that position. So be it.

[ForHisglory]

See also what they are doing in Rev5:8, "having every one of them... golden vials [bowls] full of odours/incenses, which are the prayers of saints."

See Numbers 7:10-86, esp vv.12-14,84 starting with "the first day" that they had "one bowl of ten [shekels] of gold, full of incense" (stated this way 12 x in this entire passage); and ending with v.84 stating "This was the dedication of the altar, in the day when it was anointed, by the princes of Israel..." (the passage had listed "Judah" first, on "the first day" and then on down through all "twelve days").

So if "humans" have acted in this capacity in the past, why not 24 "humans" (along with the 4 living creatures, it seems to include, in Rev5:8) in this future setting... especially since there are "24 thrones" and "crowns [stephanos] on their heads" and we know what Paul said in 1Cor6:2-3, "the world shall be judged by you" and "we shall judge angels," (and also speaks of our "Rapture" as well, 1Cor6:14 having two distinct words for "raise" in this verse, the one referring to "us" being "future" [G1825]) then this makes perfect sense to me. [note: "judge" can have the meaning of "governing" (which makes some sense in view of the 1Cor6 context), and we already know the 12 will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel]


[edit: to correct, meant to say "24" where 24 was meant ]

Ahh but the point is, which is the copy and which the original.
The original is that which is in heaven, and the earthly copies it.
To make the 24 elders human, means:
a) There were 24 humans raptured to heaven BEFORE the ordinances were given in Numbers.
b) That the 24 elders are not of the saints, whose prayers are being lifted before God.

The picture shown is that the angels bring the incense of the saints (humans) to God.

[divaD]

I think he takes it a little too personally at times.

I agree its clear he is incorrect about some rather obvious parts that were not fulfilled 2000 years ago. He has decided he can morph them into fitting though, and seems pretty hard core about that position. So be it.

You're probably right about him taking things too personally. Yet he's a grown man though, and to post in this particular section of the board, one needs to be somewhat thick skinned, that way it doesn't have to lead to hard feelings when others are disagreeing with you.

[ForHisglory]

Removes my argument for what? Are you saying as long as I consider the things that come out of the pit Heavenly beings it will clear up my contention with your Rev 9:7 prooftext? You didn't even cite Rev 12:9 which is where you're drawing the term Angels from overall this rabbit hole is all you.

Not a rabbit hole at all.
It is simply that angels means a being which is heavenly. This is a simple enough idea to grasp.
And yes the beings in the pit are not earthly beings, so that makes them heavenly - especially when you read Jude - or do you think they just evolved?

That's my point either "choice" is speculation I'm not using this as a prooftext for angels wearing "Crowns" that is you.

Actually it isn't speculation, but reasoned based upon scripture. However if you chose an alternative to them being angels then some reasoning as to what they are would clarify and deal with the point.

Those 2 Post above sum up our conversation on Angels wearing Crowns.

Possibly

You provide me with an option about whether or not its an angel and then provide this
Ok but for the record when i read that passage i would see him say that a Man was riding the Horse not an angel.

So would you say the same about these:
Gen 18:1 He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing in front of him.
Gen 19:5 And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight?
Gen 19:8 Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.”

Are you really saying that because the word man or men is used it means a literal man?

Are you saying the following are men?
Rev 6:4 And out came another horse, bright red. Its rider was permitted to take peace from the earth, so that people should slay one another, and he was given a great sword.

I wouldn't have thought it necessary to prove these are not men - however you seem to think otherwise.

Zech 1:11 And they answered the angel of the LORD who was standing among the myrtle trees, and said, ‘We have patrolled the earth, and behold, all the earth remains at rest.’
Are you really saying these riders are men?

Now I can understand you saying they are not real beings at all, but that it is a vision of symbols.
The point though is clearly the white rider is symbolically shown wearing a crown, which demonstrates that wearing a crown does not make you human.

Exactly but these events don't transpire until after the 4th beast appears on the Scene. Once again giving us a clear timing for events here we are at the End of the Age after the AC is speaking "Great things". My question is do you believe this occurs with Jesus Absent? Daniel 7:10 the court sat in judgment, and the books were opened.

No, Jesus isn't absent, but neither is He doing the judging. This is in contrast to the judgements Jesus DOES make AFTER He returns.

Who do you believe Opens the books Here?

The court does. which is comprised of angels.

Still your belief here is that Angels will be sitting on thrones when Jesus Kingdom is Coming?

Definitely. Even when we are on thrones, that doesn't mean angels will have no role, nor cease to exist. Our throne for ruling will be different to that of the angels.

As you Said its Either Angels or HUmans. So when Jesus Kingdom is "COMING" who will be sitting on the thrones Judging the World?

We judged AFTER He has come, not BEFORE.

The elders clearly don't fit the Characteristics of Normal angels, this is why we are talking about them tbh. Same with the 4 Living Creatures they do not fall under the term angel until you start to add in extrobiblical material about angels. IF you don't add that stuff then the 4 Living creatures are "NOT Angels". They would be the "Four Living Creatures" or "Cherubim". They couldn't be confused with Gabriel or Michael or the Angel of the Lord of any other "angel".

What is a "normal" angel? Every type is unique. I haven't added a single extra-biblical point. It is true you wouldn't confuse the cherubim with Gabriel - at least not as depicted in the Bible. However would you confuse them with seraphim? The 24 elders could easily be confused with Michael or some other angels from the little we know.
We assume they are human like because they are described as elders which suggests people, further because the sit on thrones.

This i think is kinda beyond the scope, i do believe that there are "angels" that are in Heavenly places that will fall to Earth. I do believe that there are angels in chains of Darkness in the pit.

IOW what is in the pit then coming out, with a specific mention of an angel over them called Abaddon, all points to them being angelic beings, if we rely only on what is in the Bible.

I do agree, which is why i'm kinda picking on your position (not trying to be a Jerk about it though) I understand how limited the text is on this subject (Angels). But if we agree that Rev 4-5 and Daniel 7:9 are the same event, then to me it would be unlikely that there are Angels sitting on thrones. The fact that you added in Rev 20:4 to me personally was to your detriment because its unlikely Jesus would have Angels on thrones while his Kingdom is "COMING", he promised the Church we would Judge angels (heavenly being) and the Earth he didn't promise this to the Angels.

I don't think Rev 4 & 5 is the same event as Dan 7:9. Rev 4 & 5 speaks of the past, and then the present(ish) for John, yet leading into the future.
Dan 7:9 for me seems connected to Rev 13:8 and especially Rev 14:7
And he said with a loud voice, “Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come, and worship him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water.”

There are Lots of views, the beginner sent me a list one time of what some of the early church father thought they represented or who they where. The truth is i don't know they Could be 24 angelic being that represent the 24 hours of the day (i think that was one of the idea's). I don't claim any of them. The elders are the elders, i do believe i will be present at the Revelation of Christ personally i just don't want to miss any of it. That may be one of the main reasons i may subconcicly dislike post-trib, i don't like the idea of missing the whole Revelation of Christ 1 Seal - 7th vail. And my first conscience thought is falling out of the Sky for the second coming.

I think your first conscious thought will be rising to meet Jesus - this is true though for both pre and post trib.
Personally I see that seals 1 - 5 and possibly 6 & 7 have already happened. The 1st trumpet is yet to blow.
I wouldn't mind missing the 7 trumpets or the 7 vials and I am looking forward to Wedding Feast.

[TheDivineWatermark]

Ahh but the point is, which is the copy and which the original.
The original is that which is in heaven, and the earthly copies it.

To make the 24 elders human, means:
a) There were 24 humans raptured to heaven BEFORE the ordinances were given in Numbers.
b) That the 24 elders are not of the saints, whose prayers are being lifted before God.

The picture shown is that the angels bring the incense of the saints (humans) to God.

They do that presently (or in the past rather), but is that true of the future that only angels ever will? Why does Rev1:5b,6 say, "and hath made us kings [or a kingdom of] priests unto God and his Father" [following the "the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto Him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood" [that seems to be a particular point in time/history, not before the ordinances in Numbers were given]... (and Rev5:8 is showing such a thing, it seems to me).

There will be saints on the earth during the trib, but that doesn't necessarily mean these "prayers" are from them, it could just be the container of "the prayers of the saints" [prayer receptacles that the 24 elders brought with them ], who knows.

Ephesians 1:20-23,5-6 says He "hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenlies IN Christ" (where He is, "FAR ABOVE ALL principality, and power, and might, and dominion"), and if "we shall judge angels," 1Cor6:2-3, then I see no reason why 1Cor6:18's "raise us out [G1825]" can't be referring to this very thing. [pictured here in Rev5 (and 1:6 referring to "priests")] Following our Rapture (which seems to be one of its purposes).

Paul said he would be awarded [by the Lord, the righteous judge] a "crown [stephanos]" AT/IN THAT DAY. [not when he dies, as some suggest]

[ForHisglory]

They do that presently (or in the past rather), but is that true of the future that only angels ever will? Why does Rev1:5b,6 say, "and hath made us kings [or a kingdom of] priests unto God and his Father" [following the "the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto Him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood" [that seems to be a particular point in time/history, not before the ordinances in Numbers were given]... (and Rev5:8 is showing such a thing, it seems to me).

There will be saints on the earth during the trib, but that doesn't necessarily mean these "prayers" are from them, it could just be the container of "the prayers of the saints" [prayer receptacles that the 24 elders brought with them ], who knows.

Ephesians 1:20-23,5-6 says He "hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenlies IN Christ" (where He is, "FAR ABOVE ALL principality, and power, and might, and dominion"), and if "we shall judge angels," then I see no reason why 1Cor6:18's "raise us out [G1825]" can't be referring to this very thing. [pictured here in Rev5] Following our Rapture (which seems to be one of its purposes)

If it is done in the future, then it is copying what was in the past, therefore my point remains true.
Further UNLESS you have predetermined that the Rapture occurs at the start of Rev 4:1, THEN it will be readily apparent that Rev 4 describes the scene in heaven BEFORE Jesus' sacrifice, and then Rev 5 describes the change from BEFORE to AFTER. Then Rev 6 speaks of the future.
IOW Rev 4 IS past and Rev 5 is also past (for us, and future - in part for John).

Rev 1:5 speaks of us, not angelic beings. Rev 5 does NOT have the elders saying the same thing, but rather saying it about us - highlighting what happened in the heavenlies when Jesus came back victorious. Otherwise you have the 4 living creatures ALSO being human along with the 24 elders.

Notice that Rev 8:3 has it stated as an angel who has the censer with the prayers.

Ephesians 1 is NOT speaking of a physical raising, but a positional relationship. IOW we are there IN Christ, and NOT as 24 Elders.

[divaD]

Ahh but the point is, which is the copy and which the original.
The original is that which is in heaven, and the earthly copies it.
To make the 24 elders human, means:
a) There were 24 humans raptured to heaven BEFORE the ordinances were given in Numbers.
b) That the 24 elders are not of the saints, whose prayers are being lifted before God.

The picture shown is that the angels bring the incense of the saints (humans) to God.

Revelation 5:1 And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals.
2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?
3 And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.
4 And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon.
5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.

Does one think this scene has already happened, or is still yet to ocur? If the former, when does one feel this scene took place? Why that might matter, these 24 elders are already present when John sees this scene. If the scene literally occurred, say 2000 years ago around the time of the ascension or shortly after, these 24 elders then can't symbolize what some Pretribbers conclude they symbolize, I guess that being the NT raptured church.

[TheDivineWatermark]

If it is done in the future, then it is copying what was in the past, therefore my point remains true.
Further UNLESS you have predetermined that the Rapture occurs at the start of Rev 4:1, THEN it will be readily apparent that Rev 4 describes the scene in heaven BEFORE Jesus' sacrifice, and then Rev 5 describes the change from BEFORE to AFTER. Then Rev 6 speaks of the future.

[re: bold] I see it as "before Jesus 'stands to JUDGE' " [which is a future time period, the "He hath FIXED/ESTABLISHED a day IN WHICH HE WILL" [certainly] judge the world in righteousness "IN A MAN WHOM HE HATH APPOINTED"... etc in that verse (not a 24-hr day--and that 'prolonged' Day STARTS just after OUR DEPARTURE/RAPTURE "in the air")]

IOW Rev 4 IS past and Rev 5 is also past (for us, and future - in part for John).

disagree (same as above)

Rev 1:5 speaks of us, not angelic beings. Rev 5 does NOT have the elders saying the same thing, but rather saying it about us - highlighting what happened in the heavenlies when Jesus came back victorious. Otherwise you have the 4 living creatures ALSO being human along with the 24 elders.

I think we went over this long ago. [back in a bit after I go retrieve that info]

Notice that Rev 8:3 has it stated as an angel who has the censer with the prayers.

I see 8:3 as mid-trib-ish, so this could just mean that Satan & his angels are being cast down [soonly], so things are shifting up a bit, but that doesn't mean the ones in 4-5 have to be angels too.

Ephesians 1 is NOT speaking of a physical raising, but a positional relationship. IOW we are there IN Christ, and NOT as 24 Elders.

True that this is "positional truths" NOW (of us). But the "Rapture" (at a point in time) changes the LOCATION of this [from "positional" and legal" truths, to now "actual" and "literal" event! ("WITH [G4862 (denoting 'UNION')] HIM")], and is its next aspect (after Paul is awarded that "crown /stephanos" along with ALL those who have loved [loving] His appearing" [which can be taken in a number of ways! but one of them seems the most likely to me!]

[Johosophat]

Revelation 5:1 And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals.
2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?
3 And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.
4 And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon.
5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.

Does one think this scene has already happened, or is still yet to ocur? If the former, when does one feel this scene took place? Why that might matter, these 24 elders are already present when John sees this scene. If the scene literally occurred, say 2000 years ago around the time of the ascension or shortly after, these 24 elders then can't symbolize what some Pretribbers conclude they symbolize, I guess that being the NT raptured church.

Its just too big of a stretch to nowhere to apply the "them" translation instead of "us" (verses9-10). It literally leads to nowhere and leaves the 24 totally in the dark. When you apply the "us" the entire issue is dramatically put to bed and the timing is now a moot argument because the 24 are clearly the raptured Saints sitting on thrones, wearing their white Robes and Crowns having been redeemed by the blood from all nations, peoples and languages and will soon reign over the earth with Christ as promised. Suddenly there is this mass of details in the text that all perfectly align.

There just isn't any sound scripture or logic to support the "them" translation. Its not just weak, its really weak and leaves you with a horribly vague mystery instead of a revelation.

The timing of the rapture is one of those issues that is most likely to get people stretching things to fit their beliefs. None of us are fully immune.

[randyk]

The text says this generation shall not pass till all these thing be fulfilled, which includes the fake great signs and wonders. There were no fake signs and wonders happening at that time, yet your interpretation claims there was. You're highly intelligent, so why can't you grasp when something has been debunked?

I'm no smarter than anybody else here. What you're really doing is calling me stupid for not believing that you've openly and fully "debunked" my position. Leaving personal remarks aside, have you considered that you haven't debunked my position at all, since you haven't even heard all of my commentary on it? You really don't seem to *want* any commentary on it, and appear to be self-satisfied simply because you want to believe you've debunked this position!

We're supposed to use this Forum to discuss differences. But you want to believe you've debunked anything you don't want to believe. How convenient! Anything you don't want to believe, which contradicts your own favored positions, has "already been debunked!"

So let's just use this one case as an example. An important point in your case against my position is that the "signs and wonders" of the false Christs and false prophets have not yet taken place. But isn't there any room in your closed-minded system to consider what these "signs and wonders" really meant to Jesus?

"Signs and wonders" has to do with the claim to have supernatural support as confirmation for a particular message. The proof was in the pudding. If you actually succeeded in accomplishing the forecast, you had God's support. If you promised victory over the Romans, you would have to show it through various demonstrations of success in terrorism.

So is there evidence that the Jews wanted to overthrow the Romans and give a false message from God? Definitely. The zealots had possession of a long tradition of resistance by the Jews to foreign oppressors. The Prophets had warned Israel to submit to foreign entities that had come by the will of God. But these "false prophets" resisted regardless, and claimed to have divine sanction.

Often we associate "signs and wonders" with charismatic phenomena, similar to Jesus' miracles during his earthly ministry. How would "false prophets" do the same? This is taken from Barne's Notes:

Many would lay, claims to being the Messiah, and, as He was universally expected, multitudes would easily be led to believe in them. There is abundant evidence that this was fully accomplished. Josephus informs us that there were many who pretended to divine inspiration; who deceived the people, leading out numbers of them into the desert. "The land," says He "was overrun with magicians, seducers, and impostors, who drew the people after them in multitudes into solitudes and deserts, to see I the signs and miracles which they promised to show by the power of God." Among these are mentioned particularly Dositheus, the Samaritan, who affirmed that He was Christ; Simon Magus, who said He appeared among the Jews as the Son of God; and Theudas, who persuaded many to go with him to the river Jordan, to see the waters divided.


http://biblehub.com/commentaries/barnes/matthew/24.htm

This has nothing to do with being closedminded, it has to with when things are not fitting, that means there is something wrong with that interpretation. There was no AOD 2000 years ago in the first century. Yet another reason I have to reject this interpretation. But if there was an AOD back then, why hasn't a single person shown exactly what it was?

Maybe you've listened only to a narrow group of interpreters, who you tend to listen to? Perhaps you think your view is "established" because you only listen to those who say so? But this forum is about stretching your mind, and looking at how others view things. It's not about saying "it's already been debunked!"

I hardly even know you, and you think you've heard everything I have to say on the matter? Not even close! If you think there is no basis for the AoD in the 1st century I wonder how many sources you've even looked at? Have you even considered the view of the Early Church Fathers on the subject?

When you say that the AoD is a "thing" you betray a certain perspective that assumes the AoD must consist of something parallel with what Antiochus 4 did. He sacrificed a pig in the temple. The "pig" is a "thing."

But that is a very narrow definition of what the "thing" is that the AoD did. The "thing" that it did for some interpreters is what Daniel said it did--it destroyed, or "desolated," the city and the sanctuary. In other words, the AoD did exactly what Jesus said it would do in Luke 21, namely destroy Jerusalem and the temple.

The "thing" the AoD is doesn't have to be an abominable statute, or the image of Jupiter, or pagan standards. It can also be an abominable pagan army, since pagan armies could also be viewed as "abominations" in the Bible. They represented an unclean, idolatrous people, trespassing upon holy ground. Proverbs 11.20; 29.27 indicates that individuals who act like pagans are an "abomination." Deut 7.25-26 claims that bringing anything idolatrous, which would include a pagan army, into the house of God is an "abomination."

BTW, I'm not saying none of the Discourse didn't apply to anyone back then. Obviously some of it did. But the part about the AOD, the part about this generation, the part about fake great signs and wonders, none of these things applied to any of them back then.

You have made up your mind without hearing all of the evidence. Or, the grid through which you think forbids that you consider anything else.

The part about the great signs and wonders is meaning Revelation 13, 2 Thess 2, and that these are endtimes events, and not something that already took place 2000 years ago.

These are different passages with their own contexts. Tying together unrelated passages simply due to reference to common terms and ideas confuses them. Why don't you try dealing with the Olivet Discourse and its own context, and not confuse them with other examples of "signs and wonders?" Would you say that the Egyptian Plagues are also in Matthew 24? After all, they were "signs and wonders" too?

Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Which clearly includes these endtimes events below, the very same endtimes events Matthew 24:24 makes mention of.

Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

2 Thessalonians 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

Revelation 13:13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.

Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

The above is the correct chronology. Matthew 24:34 does not precede those other 3 passages, it follows after their fulfillments.

You don't see the problem you're making here? You're trying to force a definitive definition upon "this generation" in Matthew 24, using a reference to 2 Thes 2 and Rev 13. In other words, you're inserting, improperly, contexts from other passages simply because they refer to "signs and wonders!" Have you considered the possibility that the "signs and wonders" of Antichrist differ from the "signs and wonders" of the "false Christs and false prophets" that Jesus spoke of in his own generation?

No, you've acted very closed-minded. You don't even want to enter into any discussion because you think you've heard it all. But from listening to you, it seems your sources are a very narrow group of interpreters, who want to see things in a particular way. I don't think this will benefit you in this case, or in the future.

[randyk]

Why do you see it as mockery if one challenges your view? I'm not saying everything you conclude about the Discourse is incorrect. But the more obvious parts, the ones that you apply to 2000 years ago, rather than post that time, such as the AOD, this generation, your interpretation of those parts are not correct for certain.

I was referring to post #204, where DWM decided to publicly let out his feelings to demonstrate his personal contempt for my positions. I'm not surprised. Pretribbers always mock those who debunk their positions.

I'm not saying you were deliberately trying to mock me. But your comments were, on the periphery, a form of mockery. "I don't think you will ever, in a thousand years, give up a single point." That kind of thing.

I might be personally offended by that. But what offends me more is the absolute absence of mind you demonstrate when you speak about my ways as if you know me. In reality, I've changed so many positions so many times that at the end of it all nobody might want to listen to me at all!

What you claim you are "certain" of grieves me, because I'm *certain* you're wrong!

I'm hoping you will cease and desist with this "certainty" thing, because you seal the can on things that you haven't fully explored. And that will stop you from growing. Just friendly advice...

[randyk]

You're probably right about him taking things too personally. Yet he's a grown man though, and to post in this particular section of the board, one needs to be somewhat thick skinned, that way it doesn't have to lead to hard feelings when others are disagreeing with you.

I'm fine with it. I get over things as fast as I can. We all get offended by things. We just need to quickly get over them. I find that the best way for me to get over insults and mockery is by seeing it as coming from the Lord. The Lord Himself may be teaching me something by it, getting me to correct my position, or humbling me when I'm getting too high-minded.

Don't worry about me feeling offended. I'm much more concerned about you thinking things are a "done deal" when you haven't heard the whole story! Watch out for claims like "I'm certain of this." That betrays a certain pride at times, meaning that more is yet to be learned. We should say, "I think this," or "it seems like this." It's a more honest, a more tactful, approach, I think?

[TheDivineWatermark]

I was referring to post #204, where DWM decided to publicly let out his feelings to demonstrate his personal contempt for my positions. I'm not surprised. Pretribbers always mock those who debunk their positions.

Did you see the part of divaD's post I bolded. THAT is what I thought was humorous. The manner in which he WORDED it, I thought funny. Not you.





It would be a similar thing if I were offended at your calling ME "DWM" ['divorced white male,' and its variants], when I really prefer being called "TDW". (an ill-applied taking of offense, IMO) Nothing was intended directly OF YOU. (I'd already been speaking of this age and that age and not this age and not that age. So I thought his CHOICE OF WORDS, funny! NOT YOU)