Some of my newly rethinking on what this generation might be meaning in the Discourse

[TrustGzus]

Something else while it's on my mind. Not one single person in here denies that the temple was destroyed within their lifetimes. How then by not interpreting this generation to mean His contemporaries in the Discourse, does that possibly take away from the fact that the temple was destroyed in their lifetimes? That fact is already proven via history, regardless. No one is denying those events happened within their lifetime. Even by interpreting this generation to not be meaning His contemporaries, this still isn't denying the temple was destroyed within their lifetimes. It might be different, if by interpreting this generation to not not be involving His contemporaries, that this denies that the temple was destroyed in their lifetimes. Yet it doesn't deny that if history has already proven it and that no one is disputing that this event literally occurred within their lifetimes.

David, how does this move anything forward? You are refuting something no one asserted in this thread or in any commentary from any school of thought. No one here as said “you don’t believe the temple was destroyed in 70ad!”

Liberals and conservatives say the temple was destroyed in 70ad. Futurists, historicists, idealists and preterists all agree the temple was destroyed in 70ad. No one debates that point and no one in any commentary from any of the views asserts that as an argument against the other side.

So.....Now what?

[marty fox]

Sure, the temple was destroyed within their lifetimes. But that is only a coincidence and has nothing to do with His predicting of this generation not passing away, till... Till what? Let's look again.

This is something that I didn't think that I would ever read on a christian web site and is a statement used by many to deny that Jesus is God.

Nothing ever predicted By Jesus when it came to pass was as a coincidence and there are no coincidences in the bible.

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

Please lets put aside all of the other differences we have in the Olivit Discourse for now and at least agree that the temple being destroyed within that generation was not a coincidence as the temple destruction was the spark that ignited the Olivit Discourse

[randyk]

Yes, the temple will be destroyed in the "generation that sees all these things fulfilled"... Those in the generation of Jesus did not see all Matt 24 fulfilled...

The destruction of the temple could happen again within the next 10-20 years: If Israel builds God's Temple again, then this happens:

Ezek 38:19 For in my jealousy and in the fire of my wrath have I spoken, Surely in that day there shall be a great shaking in the land of Israel; 20 So that the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the heaven, and the beasts of the field, and all creeping things that creep upon the earth, and all the men that are upon the face of the earth, shall shake at my presence, and the mountains shall be thrown down, and the steep places shall fall, and every wall shall fall to the ground.

This happens in the generation of those who (would see, but are taken out of) the unfolding of the 1-7 Seals, 1-7 Trumps and the 7 Bowls. Ezek 38:19-20 IS THE 7th BOWL OF WRATH... (within that Generation)

Rev 16:17 And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done. 18 And there were voices, and thunders, and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great. 19 And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath. 20 And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found. 21 And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great.

The ONLY question is, Will there be a Temple at that time. We will defiantly see a temple built if we believe this is future:

2 Thess 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Do you agree that this is at least a possibility for the bricks to fall flat and that no brick would be on the top of another because of the tremendous shifting action as the largest earthquake ever levels mountains, and fills vallies IN THE END TIMES, if the temple is there?

A couple of things... One, I do not believe the prophecy of the destruction of the temple in the Olivet Discourse is fulfilled twice. It was definitely and fully fulfilled in 70 AD.

However, I do agree that Paul said Antichrist will take his seat in the temple of God in 2 Thes 2. I can't dispute that. I also know that the Jews have long believed that Messiah will come and rebuild the temple. Some Orthodox Jews are apparently planning for that event now, as we speak. Whether or not this will be the Antichrist's "temple" I don't know?

My question about the temple of Antichrist is, Where did Paul get this doctrine from? I haven't quite figured that out yet. I'm praying about it. That will determine whether I believe a new temple will be built or not. And if it is built, I have no doubt it will, like the temple of Herod, be destroyed, stone by stone, or brick by brick.

[divaD]

This is something that I didn't think that I would ever read on a christian web site and is a statement used by many to deny that Jesus is God.

Nothing ever predicted By Jesus when it came to pass was as a coincidence and there are no coincidences in the bible.

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

Please lets put aside all of the other differences we have in the Olivit Discourse for now and at least agree that the temple being destroyed within that generation was not a coincidence as the temple destruction was the spark that ignited the Olivit Discourse

Read what I wrote again, except this time read it in context. I said it's coincidental in regards to His statement about this generation. That doesn't automatically make His statement about this generation having to only mean that period of time just because the temple was destroyed in their lifetimes. No more than it would mean, that if the book of Revelation were written before 70 AD, that that automatically proves the events of 70 AD are recorded within then.

[divaD]

od.

Nothing ever predicted By Jesus when it came to pass was as a coincidence and there are no coincidences in the bible.

You don't even have a clue what you are talking about here, in relation to the point I was making in that post. So why don't you just quit while you are still ahead?

[divaD]

David, how does this move anything forward? You are refuting something no one asserted in this thread or in any commentary from any school of thought. No one here as said “you don’t believe the temple was destroyed in 70ad!”

Liberals and conservatives say the temple was destroyed in 70ad. Futurists, historicists, idealists and preterists all agree the temple was destroyed in 70ad. No one debates that point and no one in any commentary from any of the views asserts that as an argument against the other side.

So.....Now what?

So why the big fuss from your side of the debate if one wants to understand this generation differently in the Discourse than you want to understand it? It doesn't deny the temple was destroyed in their lifetime. So what exactly is the real issue here then, meaning from per your side of the debate?

[marty fox]

Read what I wrote again, except this time read it in context. I said it's coincidental in regards to His statement about this generation. That doesn't automatically make His statement about this generation having to only mean that period of time just because the temple was destroyed in their lifetimes. No more than it would mean, that if the book of Revelation were written before 70 AD, that that automatically proves the events of 70 AD are recorded within then.

I know what you were saying but nothing is coincidental. Jesus had just finished saying the 7 woes to the Pharacies and ended it with saying to them look your house is left desolate so they were the generation he was talking to that’s why he said look to them as in they would see the temple destroyed

No coincidence here when he said look he was prophesying with a date

[divaD]

I know what you were saying but nothing is coincidental. Jesus had just finished saying the 7 woes to the Pharacies and ended it with saying to them look your house is left desolate so they were the generation he was talking to that’s why he said look to them as in they would see the temple destroyed

No coincidence here when he said look he was prophesying with a date

Yet reading your response to that post I made, it didn't look like to me you understand what I was meaning.

Marty, you were basically falsely claiming that I was stating that even though Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple, and the fact it was destroyed, that I was saying this was only a coincedence in relation to His prediction. You must think I'm the stupidist person around here if you think I believe things like that. I didn't say the destruction of the temple was a coincedence. I said that it was a coincedence, though it was destroyed within their lifetimes, with that of Him saying this generation shall not pass away, until all is fulfilled. That doesn't undeniably prove that just because the temple was destroyed within their lifetimes, that this was what He was meaning by this generation then.

[marty fox]

Yet reading your response to that post I made, it didn't look like to me you understand what I was meaning.

Marty, you were basically falsely claiming that I was stating that even though Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple, and the fact it was destroyed, that I was saying this was only a coincedence in relation to His prediction. You must think I'm the stupidist person around here if you think I believe things like that. I didn't say the destruction of the temple was a coincedence. I said that it was a coincedence, though it was destroyed within their lifetimes, with that of Him saying this generation shall not pass away, until all is fulfilled. That doesn't undeniably prove that just because the temple was destroyed within their lifetimes, that this was what He was meaning by this generation then.

No I wasn't David I knew what you were saying not that it was a coincidence that the temple was destroyed but you were saying that it was a coincidence that it happened within that generation. My post #157 explains my position

[Soldier_of_Faith]

A couple of things... One, I do not believe the prophecy of the destruction of the temple in the Olivet Discourse is fulfilled twice. It was definitely and fully fulfilled in 70 AD.

However, I do agree that Paul said Antichrist will take his seat in the temple of God in 2 Thes 2. I can't dispute that. I also know that the Jews have long believed that Messiah will come and rebuild the temple. Some Orthodox Jews are apparently planning for that event now, as we speak. Whether or not this will be the Antichrist's "temple" I don't know?

My question about the temple of Antichrist is, Where did Paul get this doctrine from? I haven't quite figured that out yet. I'm praying about it. That will determine whether I believe a new temple will be built or not. And if it is built, I have no doubt it will, like the temple of Herod, be destroyed, stone by stone, or brick by brick.

I have also wondered how Paul got the revelation of 2 Thess 2... It is an interesting question, but that aside, I do appreciate you accept a truth in Faith.

To me (my opinion only) you are trapped by faith in a system (your post trib beliefs) that mess with scripture, moving things around where they do not belong, thus negating possible outcomes of other prophecies. In my case, I literally erased all my beliefs and started from scratch dozens of times, as I went through all the prophecies allowing the text to align itself. Many times I deleted all my work, (Event though I though it was darn close to perfect in MY OWN THOUGHTS), just to allow the Holy Spirit to show me new truths.. And low and behold, new truths would emerge that made me realize my previous thoughts were not quite on track... However, I have found that the parts that the Holy Spirit showed me originally would stay, and my own thoughts were replaced later on by the TRUTH in the Holy Spirit... Now I have a accurate (not perfect) idea where I have learned to understand which parts I am Holy Spirit guided, and which sections I am not.

Anyways, it helps sometimes to let the text do the talking, not the belief...

As you said, we can not ignore a future Son of Perdition sitting in a literal temple. Logic then comes in and we say to ourselves: There is currently no Temple. This is TRUTH. But after this, OUR OWN THOUGHTS take over and we ASSUME everything. Instead, why don't we look up scripture where an individual will interact with a Temple in other prophecy? The scripture tells us to add Precept upon precept, and also to search the scriptures, ect... The problem is that if we find one In Daniel, but our Faith in XYZ-theology has already assigned that prophecy to a PAST time period, then the Holy Spirit can not use it to explain anything... It simply is brushed away by our own thoughts...

Dad-Gum that stinks! Why can't you accept that a prophecy can be shadow-fulfilled, then Fully Fulfilled? Jesus taught this principle when speaking of John the Baptist representing the prophecies of Elijah... Jesus clearly linked John to fulfilling the "SPIRIT" of the prophecy, but then said "Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things." Jesus is not a liar... He wants us to accept that things that we think are already fulfilled, MAY NOT BE... And to accept that there indeed IS a spiritual (or shadow) fulfillment AS WELL...

If you could accept this, you might see things more clearly...

[divaD]

I have also wondered how Paul got the revelation of 2 Thess 2

I'm guessing probably from the OT for one. Such as in Isaiah and Daniel. Per Isaiah, perhaps via the following.

Isaiah 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

In the book of Daniel maybe via the following?

Daniel 11:31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.
32 And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.
33 And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days.
34 Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries.
35 And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.
36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.
37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.
38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.
39 Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain.

Now let's compare some of the above with the following in 2 Thess 2.

2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.


I will exalt my throne above the stars of God(Isaiah 14:13)...I will be like the most High(Isaiah 14:14)...so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God(2 Thessalonians 2:4)

and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god(Daniel 11:36)...Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God(2 Thessalonians 2:4)

Unfortunately though, there are some folks who apparently don't seem to be too fond of Scripture interpreting Scripture if when by doing that it might debunk some of their current position on the topic in question. But when it might not debunk some of their position on the topic in question, they seem fine with interpreting Scripture with Scripture then.

Assuming I am correct in regards to Isaiah 14 and the connection to 2 Thess 2:4, it seems to me then, that Isaiah 14 proves no literal brick and mortar temple is meant in 2 Thess 2:4.

[randyk]

I have also wondered how Paul got the revelation of 2 Thess 2... It is an interesting question, but that aside, I do appreciate you accept a truth in Faith.

To me (my opinion only) you are trapped by faith in a system (your post trib beliefs) that mess with scripture, moving things around where they do not belong, thus negating possible outcomes of other prophecies. In my case, I literally erased all my beliefs and started from scratch dozens of times, as I went through all the prophecies allowing the text to align itself. Many times I deleted all my work, (Event though I though it was darn close to perfect in MY OWN THOUGHTS), just to allow the Holy Spirit to show me new truths.. And low and behold, new truths would emerge that made me realize my previous thoughts were not quite on track... However, I have found that the parts that the Holy Spirit showed me originally would stay, and my own thoughts were replaced later on by the TRUTH in the Holy Spirit... Now I have a accurate (not perfect) idea where I have learned to understand which parts I am Holy Spirit guided, and which sections I am not.

Anyways, it helps sometimes to let the text do the talking, not the belief...

As you said, we can not ignore a future Son of Perdition sitting in a literal temple. Logic then comes in and we say to ourselves: There is currently no Temple. This is TRUTH. But after this, OUR OWN THOUGHTS take over and we ASSUME everything. Instead, why don't we look up scripture where an individual will interact with a Temple in other prophecy? The scripture tells us to add Precept upon precept, and also to search the scriptures, ect... The problem is that if we find one In Daniel, but our Faith in XYZ-theology has already assigned that prophecy to a PAST time period, then the Holy Spirit can not use it to explain anything... It simply is brushed away by our own thoughts...

Dad-Gum that stinks! Why can't you accept that a prophecy can be shadow-fulfilled, then Fully Fulfilled? Jesus taught this principle when speaking of John the Baptist representing the prophecies of Elijah... Jesus clearly linked John to fulfilling the "SPIRIT" of the prophecy, but then said "Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things." Jesus is not a liar... He wants us to accept that things that we think are already fulfilled, MAY NOT BE... And to accept that there indeed IS a spiritual (or shadow) fulfillment AS WELL...

If you could accept this, you might see things more clearly...

My philosophy is quite simple. If the Holy Spirit wants to tell us something He will not do it through riddles, shadows, and obscure hints. Rather, He will tell us in black and white doctrine. This approach has served me well for many years, and has helped me to avoid presumptive approaches that will later have the bottom fall out of them.

I've never had a problem believing in the Antichrist taking his seat in the temple of God. I've only had a trouble understanding *what temple* Paul is talking about, and what he based this belief on?

I reject Pretrib Doctrine because...
1) It wasn't taught in the Church for 1800 years.
2) It isn't explicitly taught in the Scriptures--it is based on logical deductions and on symbolic interpretations.
3) Postrib Doctrine is explicitly taught in 2 Thes 2, and is a theme beginning in Dan 7, in which the Son of Man comes to destroy the Antichrist.

So I ask you, Why not follow your own advice, and ignore presumptive doctrines so that the Holy Spirit can reveal the truth by His word? Why not believe 2 Thes 2, which explicitly teaches Postrib? I *must* believe the word of God!

[divaD]

Anyways, it helps sometimes to let the text do the talking, not the belief...

I wouldn't say sometimes, I would say it helps all the time. But it involves more than that. Context plays a major role. It matters what context something is said in since the context it is said in can change the typical meaning, such as this generation. If one is using that phrase in 2nd coming context, that phrase obviously then can't be meaning the same thing it would be meaning if said within a context only involving contemporaries.

[Trivalee]

This means just what it means. It's like trying to prove that black means white. You won't be able to get away from the fact black means black, and white means white. A generation means a generation, a literal generation.

Jesus was saying that this is going to happen in the near future, within the lifetime of some of those around at that time. Jesus clearly derived this from Dan 9.26-27, where the destruction of the city and the sanctuary is discussed. This had to do with the abomination of desolation associated with the desolation of Jerusalem and the temple. Jesus was saying it was going to happen in his lifetime, if only after his death.

Yes, Jesus mentioned his 2nd Coming. He did *not* say that would happen in his own generation. Jesus mentioned a number of things, including the destruction of the temple, and then said "all these things" would take place in "this generation." That is, the things leading up to the temple's destruction would happen in that generation--not Christ's 2nd Coming.

But some are resistant to things like black and white. I sympathize. It's a tough road to go down, trying to disprove what Jesus explicitly said!

Since you acknowledged that Jesus spoke about his second coming and then said "ALL these things" in this generation. How can it logical to argue that all these things were fulfilled in 70 AD given that Jesus has not returned?

[divaD]

Since you acknowledged that Jesus spoke about his second coming and then said "ALL these things" in this generation. How can it logical to argue that all these things were fulfilled in 70 AD given that Jesus has not returned?

Matthew 24:33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Obviously, till all these things be fulfilled, also includes...when ye shall see all these things.

Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:


Obviously as well, when ye shall see all these things, that includes every single thing mentioned in verse 29. Obviously, shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken, did not happen in the lifetimes of His contemporaries. Therefore logic demands that verse 34 couldn't possibly be meaning the first century.

The way I tend to look at things in general, if the interpretation is not logical, that's a pretty good indication the interpretation couldn't possibly be correct.