Preterism and "This Generation"

Warren: "What a term means on page one is
what it means on page three. "

Try reading here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/forum/4.html?
(do not post there, it is for Baptists only).
That whole forum shows over an over again,
that terms might not mean the same everywhere they
appear. This is called "communication".

I admit i've spent 20 years of my life in a software house
assuring in the technical documentation that your statement
is true. The statement just isn't true in
God's Holy Written Word.

For example "Godhead" in the KJV1769
translates three different Greek terms
whose Strong's numbers are: 2304,
2305, and 2320.

 

Warren: "How can you make "this generation" to be a 2000 plus year church age in Matt.24:34 when the same term plainly referred to the one's Jesus was speaking to in Matt.23:35-36?"

DUH, from the definition maybe?

 

Personally, I don't think it is possible to decide what 'this generation' means from the stated verses alone. As with most prophetic scripture, we must interpret in light of the whole. I think this is nowhere more seen than in this example. The text by itself is not conclusive. Other examples I can think of would be the restrainer, the armies of heaven, the 24 elders, etc. By themselves, it is difficult to ascertain an absolute identity or meaning. Other scriptures must be used to enlighten. However, the basice of interpretation must always be followed: interpret the unclear in light of the clear, and if the plain sense makes sense, go with that. The word 'generation' clearly has different meanings, and the word 'this' is ambiguous as well ('This' that He is talking to, or 'this' that He is talking about, both are equally valid interpretations of 'this'.) Again, we must search the scriptures for further information...

 

Amen, Brother Danrusdad -- Preach it!

 

Further search of scripture will confirm what generation means. Read the latter part of Matt 23. Funny, past theologians had no problem understanding the meaning. It wasn't until Scofield showed up with his new theory did people start to redefine "generation".

Is there any other use of the word genea to mean "an age" found in the New Tesatament?

 

If Adam was the FIRST MAN and all in Adam died as scriptures say. Its the Generations of Adam that are added God shows those to express His times.

Adams Generation was 930 years+ the 70 desolation (1000 years) would be the old things that were seen (then)as passing away and the good things already present in Pauls day.

The above statement is YESTERDAY because Paul called His day "To day"

Scripture validates this when it says, " a THOUSAND YEARS ARE AS YESTERDAY WHEN IT HAS PASSED (OR A WATCH IN THE NIGHT).

Both the Work of God in Christ on the Cross seen as the old man Adam (the First) dying (HIS generations are to be counted along with the 70 years desolation bringing you to the thousand years God tells us about concerning "Yesterday".

Now because Paul calls the day "To day" refering to what God says as well the first thousand years have passed. The next day is "For ever"

He is the same God "Yesterday" ( as a 1000 years passed) "To Day" (in Paul's day) and "forever".

Now a thousand years is seen as A DAY (perhaps of the eternal day that dawns in our hearts? The DAY does dawn.


God bless

Seth3

 

I figured I might be called to give verses so heres a few.

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same”” YESTERDAY””, and TO DAY, and FOR EVER.

Psalm 90:4 For a THOUSAND YEARS in thy sight [are but] as YESTERDAY WHEN”” IT HAS PASSED”””, and [as] a watch in the night.

Genesis 5:5 Adam lived 930 years then he died (first Adam) 1Corinth 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Plus the Seventy years of Desolation

Paul DECLARES WHICH DAY IT IS HERE. So YESTERDAY IS INDEED PASSED

Hebrews 3:13 … WHILE IT IS CALLED “”TO DAY””

Peters thousand years is AS A DAY.

God Bless

Seth3

 

Still, then, you're not finally saved, and can still end up lost, so even if we accept preterism; how can this be the Kingdom, "peace and safety", all the heavenly descriptions in Rev. 21,22, etc. then? We're apparently still in danger of Hell!
Actually, coming to realize the validity of the immediate meanings of these statements, (at least in a typical sense) from our last debates, It became clear that this seemingly difficult statement (you must endure to be saved) referred to those in the pre-AD70 period, where the promise of salvation was not complete, and if they endured to the Parousia, they would experience the salvation of the Kingdom age, and if they didn't, they would perish in the judgment of Jerusalem. That seemed to explain everything, and remove the apparent conflict with salvation by grace through faith alone. Yet now, you're applying it to this supposed Kingdom age itself where "there is no more curse" and "all tears are wiped away". That is definitely not consistent!

Another big hole I have just discovered is that if Rev. 22 is supposed to be a description of our persent reality in the spiritual "kingdom", then the tree of life is here and now. Yet in 1:7, Jesus says the tree of life is in "the paradise of God". Paradise is supposed to be the spirit realm where we go when we die, right? This is a scope indicator that forces ch. 22 to be future, at least in an antiypical sense.

So yes, there are "clear time statements", but there are also "clear action statements". Shall God really personally judge all, Jew and Gentile? Shall Christ really put down all human rule and rule Himself, with us ruling with Him? Shall He really "wipe away all tears" in the world? Or is all of this "symbolic" somehow? And also "clear scope statements" (who is affected by these actions, such as the judgment? Jerusalem only or the whole world? Unrepentant Jews only or even the Gentile powers that destroyed them and continue to sin against God themselves? The Old Covenant only, or the whole age of sin, death and decay?). Plus, "clear sense statements" (how these actions will be perceived; spiritually by believers only, or physically, by even those who have no spiritual discernment?). The presense of all of these types of "clear indicators" forces dual meaning. Just like the preterist accuses futurists of butchering the time statements, the full preterist far worse buthchers the action, sense and scope statements into mere platitudes at best. Like Nero's death (before the AD70 Parousia) fulfilling his being defeated by the returning Christ (one site tries to make "by" in one of the pertinent texts into "before"); and the fall of the empire centuries later fulfilling Christ's smashing of it, as well as all other kingdoms that rise and fall ever since--which also was said to be at his second Coming. Then we Christians today are "ruling" with Christ and "smiting" or "breaking" the nations "with the rod of iron" just by preaching the Gospel. (I've done a lot of researching preterist sites since our discussions!). And let's not get started with the nature of the Resurrection (body or just a spirit); there is no more Satan, etc.
Sorry, but all of this is stretching it far worse than anything the futurists are doing! Here is my new page, based on both our discussion, plus what I have read on other sites. web page

A question I have, if any of you know anything about it: http://www.strato.net/~dagreen/questionsandanswers4.html#note68 mentions some "hyper-preterist" teaching that a physical rapture of the true saints actually occurred in AD70, leaving the false ones behind. This is interesting, and would explain Church history. (it has even been suggested that those left behind were so ashamed, they wrote nothing about it, and that is why there is little writing from the immediate postapostolic period, and why those afterward did not recognize a past parousia.) If some type of full preterism were true, I would say that it would have to be this brand. But which group/ministry or leader was it that taught this? Does anyone know?

 

I believe that the ONLY place one can find 'genea'(generation) used as Ed would have used it in this example would be the Septuagint! Nowhere else is this greek term used, especially with the adj. "this," to represent no other than the contemporary generation spoken to at that time. Yet many wanting to deny the truth to favor a view or opinion, are willing to bend and even break the literary, hemeneutical, and truthful Word and intentions of our Lord Jesus Christ!!! Playing these word games to concoct a meaning to suit their purpose is similar to what the so called homosexual christians have used with biblical passages to justify their actions! If the apostles thought our Lord's "this generation" in Matthew 23:36 meant that generation then, and MINUTES later heard the same exact expression in Matthew 24:34 used in conjunction with and about those to which He had just spoken to in Matthew 23:36, I am sure they would have understood it to represent the same group of people. If not they would have been thoroughly confused just as it sounds to me while writing it down here! And the Jews knew he was referring to them, for that is why Jesus was soon arrested and then told the Sanhedrin that they would see it happening, for which He was later crucified! If you can not see the tie here, I do not know how you can find much consistancy in any eschatological passages!

 

Everyone, please do remember to view the rules you agreed to when you joined.
Warren, I see you're new here. Please keep in mind that this is a high traffic message board. People do not always follow through on threads, or lose where they were. Some people only post once in a while, and sometimes one will study a topic and come back with a response after a few weeks. Please do not expect people to work within a time frame suited to you, as everyone has their own schedules and interests.
Gina

 

EricB: " ... mentions some "hyper-preterist" teaching that a physical rapture of the true saints actually occurred in AD70, leaving the false ones behind."

If this were true then the 90AD book
of John called "Revelation" is either
a useless history book or a lie.
And 44 Million people who died thinking
they were martyr's for Christ's sake were
fools. Sorry, such hpyer-preterist thinking
is full of holes having more hole
than straight preterist thinking

 

Eric B., I always enjoy your input and discussions. You always bring up well thought out issues. I share what I have come to believe though I admit every view has its problems and difficulties including preterism.

I hold to eternal election and security so this isn't a salvation issue for me. As far as the phrases: "there is no more curse" and "all tears are wiped away" These I believe in some way refer to bondage under the Old Covenant system. In the New Covenant the things that caused the curse nd tears are no longer in existence in those who have been redeemed in the New Covenant.

Actually Rev 21 and 22 make a strong case for preterism.

Rev 21: 9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. 10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem , descending out of heaven from God,


Here the angel clearly tells John that the New Jerusalem is the Bride of the Lamb. This is clearly a symbolic picture of the Church.


Revelation 22
1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.

Is this river of water to be literal and future? Could it be the same living water Jesus told the woman at the well about?

2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

If this is a description of Heaven then why are there nations and why do they need to be healed? This is the same tree of life found in Genesis. So what was it? I believe it gave immortality. Those in Christ have immortality now. Jesus told the people in John's Gospel that those who believed in Him would never die. Clearly not a phsical death jesus was referring to but spiritual.
On this point, here is where alot of people in my opinion miss the boat. The Old Covenant was made of physical types to represent spiritual realities in the New. People want to make the physical types into physical realities. It is my belief that most if not all of the OC types were to be fulfilled in the spiritual. The Kingdom, circumcision, writing of the Law on the heart, are all spiritual.

7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.


Clear time-indicator. These must be dealt with. These are why I am a preterist. You can interpret Revelation and prophetic verses in many ways, but to take them out of their intended time frame is when you err.


10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.

Again, what was the angel telling John? Wait a few 1000 years? Don't believe me, after all God doesn't communicate to His creation in a clear way concerning time? Revelation opens with time references in Rev 1:1,3 and ends the book with time references.


12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

This verse sounds much like the one in Matthew:

Matt. 16: 27For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. 28I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom ."

14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Again if the city is the Kingdom/Church, this makes perfect sense. However if this is describing some future home in eternity then who is it that can enter?

15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

Who are these people outside the city? Sinners just outside our eternal city or sinners living right next door to us who are lost in their sins?

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Preterism/stevens-ed_p_01.html

I have never really studied this view. Perhaps you have read this, if not it might help you out.

So the action must take place within the time statements. Therefore we must re-think how to interpret the action statements. This is the problem I had. One must say, either the time statements are wrong or how I interpreted the action statements was wrong. I chose the filter the action statments through the grid of the time statements. I don't know how else to do it without implying that the time references are uninspired portions of scripture.

 

Ed

I disagree with your assumption of the 90AD date for the writing of the book of Revelation! Being that this is basically a thread on the "this generation" term, I would more than love to debate the dating issue with you on a new thread if you would like. As you are probably aware, there is quite a lot of controversy on the date that Revelation was written, and getting the correct date is essential to getting a proper understanding of John's apocolyptic writing.

 

I mean 96AD for the writing date of Revelation.
Sorry for the typo. If the Preterist
are right, then Revelation is an encoded
history book.

 

Ed,

Sure, the Strong's concordance will give three or more different ways a term can be used. Your point? The problem is, we can't use Strong's to pick and choose what definition we need to uphold a cherished, preconceived viewpoint. Ever hear of "author intent"? How dod JESUS use the term "this generation"? And how about "origional audience relevance"? How did the DISCIPLES understand the term "this generation"? Being Jewish, they were no doubt well aware of the various geneologies in the Old Testament, all of which show a generation to be equal to a lifespan. Then we have Matthew using the same Greek word - genea - in the geneology of chapter one verses 1-17, where a generation is CLEARLY equal to a lifespan, as evidenced by the fact that each of those 42 generations is distinguished by a given lifespan. It could not be any plainer.

Neither Jesus nor the inspired Matthew, Mark, and Luke use the Greek word "genea" in the sense of a long, indefinite age. The Greek word "genos" DOES carry the meaning of successive generations, or a race of people, making room for thousands of years. But it was the Greek word "genea" that was used by the inspired apostles in every instance. Therefore, we MUST remain consitent with how Matthew used the word genea in chapter one.

Jesus directly linked his coming and the end of the age to the desolation of Jerusalem, which he called "the tribulation of those days" (Matt.24:29). 70 A.D. was less than forty years from the time of the Olivet discourse. Coincidence? Surely not! Jesus said that all would be fulfilled before THAT generation had passed.

Your thoughts?

Warren

 

Warren: "Your point?"

Yes, i accept your concession.
Good try Brother Warren. Better luck
next time. Nice debate.

 

My point was, if you still have to worry about "persevering" or "enduring" to be saved, then it IS still basically the bondage associated with the Old Covenant. And one problem I have seen in some expressions of the doctrine of election is that one one hand, we're supposed to be eternally secure, but on the other, it in practice becomes dependant on our own act of perseverance. I know, one only perseveres if preordained to, but then since none of us can see into the future to see if we do persevere, and many Calvinists even go as far as to confess that their faith might be "vain", then once again, in practice, it is do good works ("persevere"), and you will be saved (you have proven ytourself elect).

OK, I'm aware of this argument, but my point this time was that the tree was said in ch.1:7 to be in paradise. Now, you're not saying this age is paradise too, are you? Everyone I've seen, on all sides of eschatology, takes paradise to be where one goes when they die; like the thief on the cross. It was there in Eden, but both the Tree and the garden itself man was shut of from afterwards, and they can't be found anywhere on earth since, so that too may have been another realm like paradise, though on earth, like the futurists' view of the final Kingdom. So this is perhaps one of the biggest proofs of these scenes being future. I know "a river of eternal life to the nations" is being offered now, but still, in paradise it would be even greater. All the nations are not being haled now, but in Heaven, those who are there will be finally completely healed, and it does not necessarily say this is an ongoing thing. (i.e. nations of unconverted people come to the tree forever, and this only represents some out of these nations getting saved, but then they still have to die and go to another realm to experience complete healing).

We enter, typically now, by getting saved; then when we die and are resurrected; or ar caught up at His return, we inaly enter. For the person reading, it has not happened yet, so it is always possible to enter; and assuming that there will be lost people gerring saved in a dying earth of sin forever is not necessary.
All of these preterist "time" applications were special typical fulfillment for the generation who did the actual crucifying, and the faithful who witnessed it and were persecuted by those responsible; so that Christ would be vindicated at as the fledgling Church age went on. But the final judgment and especially reward has not occurred yet.
And while this could be typically portrayed as "the sign of the Son of man in Heaven", neither did it then fulfill the mourning of all tribes (not even in just the Roman Empire back then), nor the gathering of the elect by the angels described further in Revelation 14. The Church was the type of these real events. Yet it all remained to be yet completely fulfilled, and even in a context of preterism, heaven would be the final fulfillment of the gathering of the elect to the kingdom.
None of us today, or for the last 19 centurues have been in the position of the first century saits; of coming out of the Old Covenant of death, and experiencing spiritual life (and assurance of salvation) for the first time. So while all of that was significant for them, we are far removed from it. So God has a future promise for us.

 

Wow; thanks! I had actually glanced through that article, and even included a reference to/quote of it on my page! But I didn't read enough to know his full teaching. I thought he was fururist or historicist, and even wondered what he was doing on the PreteristArchives to begin with! (It thought it was basically a counter view; to give the other side equal time; like the responses that follow the article). I had no idea that THIS was the very article I was looking for. Looking at the date, it is even from May '02, just like the strato.net site says, and not even that, scrolling down, the author of that site, dagreen, even makes a couple of responses!

Still, this is the most viable of the preterist theories. The main objections are that the Kingdom would be on earth "forever", but this assumes, based on the commonly cited proof texts Psalms 78:69, Ps.104:5, Psalms 119:90, Ps. 148:1-6 and Isaiah 9:7 that this old earth would continue on forever, and therefore, this must be where Christ "reigns" forever. But remember, there is supposed to be a "NEW" earth. This is spiritualized as "Israel", but there is nothing to preclude that Christ would continue His reign on a new earth beyond this old one. After all, the one issue we cannot escape, is that when people die, they continue their "Kingdom existence" in another realm. The other objection is that "Christ says 'my desire is not to take them "out" of the world'". But first of all, this was written before AD70, and refers to the time of trials before His return. How can we apply every other promise to AD70, and leave this one for us now? Plus, we all must leave the world anyway. If a physical rapture (either in AD70 or in the yet future) negates this, then so does a spiritual "rapture" or "resurrection" to Heaven at death!

 

This is a short, incomplete piece I've been working on this week. But thought it would go well with this discussion.
__________________________________

Matthew 24, Luke 21, and the Preterism downfall

If one teaches that both Matthew 24 and Luke 21 describe the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D., and ONLY the destruction in 70 A.D., they have a problem they are not aware of.

Matthew 24 teaches of the yet to happen abomination of desolation while Luke 21 speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D. I will attempt to present the truth of this matter, not expecting to convert any preterists, but simply to give others more proof of what they already know to be true. Christ did not come in 70 A.D.

The First Issue: He said what where?

Some will say that Matthew 24 and Luke 21 are the same teaching. Even many futurists believe this. But if we take great care and investigate these two similar accounts we become aware that they are only similar to a certain extent. In fact, they are two completely different teachings given by Christ at two completely different times and locations!

In Matthew 24 verse 1-2 we see Jesus give the disciples information as they are leaving the temple.

Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. And He said to them, "Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down (Matthew 24:1-2)."

Clearly Jesus makes the above statement while they are still gazing upon the temple, but in verse 3 we see a clear departure of Jesus and His disciples from the temple’s location. The question the disciples ask and Jesus’ answer take place at a later time on the Mount of Olives.

As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age (Matthew 24:3)?"

It’s a much different scenario in Luke 21.

And while some were talking about the temple, that it was adorned with beautiful stones and votive gifts, He said, "As for these things which you are now looking at the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down (Luke 21:5-6)."

While they were at the temple Jesus said, "As for these things which you are now looking at…" According to this verse they were obviously at the temple. And that is not the only clue we have. Luke 21:37 again clarifies this fact and makes is clear that the Luke 21 teaching took place in the day at the temple.

Now during the day He was teaching in the temple, but at evening He would go out and spend the night on the mount that is called Olivet (Luke 21:37).

This verse not only informs us that it was daytime at the temple during this particular teaching, but that it was nighttime when He gave the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24! It’s very black and white. The teaching in Luke 21 is given by Jesus at the temple in the day and the teaching Jesus gives in Matthew 24 took place at night on the Mount of Olives.

The Second Issue: Before of after birth pain?

Matthew 24 clearly states that the birth pains take place BEFORE the abomination of desolation and the time to flee from Judea to the mountains.

Birth pains
"For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes. But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs (Matthew 24:7-8)."

Verse 9 then says, "THEN they will deliver you to tribulation…" and continues to describe the details of the persecution. Verse 15 continues through verse 16 with, "Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains."

Clearly, in Matthew 24, the birth pains take place BEFORE the abomination and the persecution associated with it. I think preterists would agree with this.

But what does Luke 21 say about the birth pains that Matthew 24 mentions? This is where it gets tricky, but this is not guesswork. It’s investigative work that is clear and positive proof that cannot be dismissed as merely human interpretation.

Then He continued by saying to them, "Nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be great earthquakes, and in various places plagues and famines; and there will be terrors and great signs from heaven (Luke 21:10-11).

These are the exact same birth pains that are mentioned in Matthew 24. But what is next?

"But before all these things, they will lay their hands on you and will persecute you, delivering you to the synagogues and prisons, bringing you before kings and governors for My name's sake (Luke 21:12)."

What "things" are Jesus talking about in Luke when He says, "But before all these things?" The "things" could be nothing other than the birth pains He just mentioned in the previous verse.

In Matthew Jesus clearly taught that the birth pains would take place first and "then" they would be delivered up to tribulation and should flee to Judea. Now, in Luke, Jesus is telling us that "Before all these things" (before the same birth pains mentioned in Matt 24) they would be persecuted and should flee to the mountains from the desecration that Jerusalem was to then experience (v. 20-21)!

Matthew 24 = Birth pains and then tribulation / fleeing
Luke 21 = Tribulation / fleeing and then birth pains

There is no possible way that these two accounts can only speak of what has already taken place (70 A.D. destruction), and there is only one answer that smoothly harmonizes this dilemma. Matthew 24 only records the answer to the disciples about the coming of Christ and the end of the age, while Luke 21 speaks of the event that would soon take place in 70 A.D. (And then concludes with the comic signs of the end of the age).

This can be confusing to some, but to put it in plain English—Before the birth pains Jerusalem was to be surrounded by armies and desecrated (Luke 21, 70 A.D.) and after the birth pains will come the abomination of desolation (Matthew 24, future event). Once one grasps the details and understands this Scriptural fact it enables the objective studier to clearly see that preterism, once again, is impossible.

Dave Bussard
www.whowillbeleftbehindandwhen.com

 

A few comments for you denialists to consider:


What Matthew called "the abomination of desolation" Luke called "Jerusalem compassed with armies..the desolation thereof". That these expressions denote one and the same time and event is plain from the fact that the verses following each quotation are precisely the same ("flee to the mountains", "sabbath day", etc..). So, eschatologist, you are WRONG in aserting that these are two different chronological events.

From any angle you wish to define it, the above event is history, being fulfilled in the 3 1/2 year Jewish-Roman War of 66-70 A.D.

Ed, agreeing that Strong's has different usages for genea is NOT a concession for your screwy, inconsistent definition of "this generation". Jesus was in no way referrring to a 2000 year long church age! We must interpret scripture with scripture. Lk.17:25 says that Jesus was "rejected of this generation". We all know what gewneration rejected Jesus!

Lk.11:51 said that the blood of all the prophets would be "required of this generation". It was the JEWS who were guilty of the blood of the prophets - read Matthew 23, Lk.13:33-35, and I Thes.2:14-16. Theologian and historian alike agree that the Jews were severely and divinely judged in 70 A.D. Even Titus, according to Lange's commentary, considered his mission to be the wrath of God upon the Jews.

So we must be consistent with these other references, Ed, not inconsistent, as you are in saying that "this generation" referred to a 2000 year church age.

Let's get some realistic feedback and concessions here guys. Jesus put the fulfillment of his coming and the end of the age under the same time statement as the Temple's destruction, meaning that wqe CANNOT seperation those three things by thousands of years. Jesus said that his comibng would be "immediately after the tribulation of THOSE DAYS". WHAT days??? The days when Jerusalem would be compassed with armies and desolated and the TEmple destroyed. Folks, that happened in 70 A.D. And don't going crying "double fulfillment", or "type" because neither Jesus nor the Apostles taught that the Temple would be destroyed and then "rebuilt" thousands of years later. Our doctrine must be built upon what the New Testament SAYS, not on what it doesn't say. Don't believe the dispensational theologians who add things to the New Testament, like a "church age paranethesis". They are guilty of ADDING TO THE SCRIPTURE". Such is the case with their interpretation of "this generation".

Standing by for some concessions.

Warren