Replies

Therefore, Paul continued preaching the gospel until Nero beheaded him. Peter and James also continued preaching until they were killed.

You're skirting the issue ... the 'end of the age' was not before they were killed ... it was in 70 AD.

According to your view, the apostles (who were given the Great Commission) were resurrected at the 'end of the age' ... which you view as 70 AD via Matt 24:3. Since the Great Commission in Matt 28:20 would also continue until the end of the age ... logic dictates the conclusion that the Great Commission was fulfilled by 70 AD as well ... since the 'preaching of the gospel to the whole world' was completed before 70 AD ... when 'the end' of Matt. 24 came.

You either have a glaring inconsistency in your view (highlighted by your call to fulfill the Great Commission) or ... its time to reconsider what 'end of the age' really means in Matthew.

You could probably guess what I would recommend.

This is why I have said that when you interpret Matt 24 completely through the lens of "this generation" ... you will branch out in your consequence tree until it is as wide as possible ... then those consequences need additional foundation for support until the entire eschatological structure stands on a pin ... like a diamond balanced on its point. That point is the date of Revelation as I have said. It all comes down to that ...

If the book of Revelation was written after 70 AD ... your position vaporizes into nothing. That intellectual fulcrum of commitment is too much for anyone to uphold. It requires constant maintenance and the emotional and intellectual energy expended in defending it is better used elsewhere.

>>>You're skirting the issue ... the 'end of the age' was not before they were killed ... it was in 70 AD.<<<

You know I am not skirting the issue. You only reason you responded is because you haven't had a chance to call me a name in a day or so.

>>>Since the Great Commission in Matt 28:20 would also continue until the end of the age ... logic dictates the conclusion that the Great Commission was fulfilled by 70 AD as well.<<<

For them it was over, unless you believe like those wackos who believe they never died. You don't believe like them, do you?

>>>>You either have a glaring inconsistency in your view (highlighted by your call to fulfill the Great Commission) or ... its time to reconsider what 'end of the age' really means in Matthew.<<<

I don't expect you to see it. You are convinced you are right. It was for the others reading this thread that I responded in the way I did. Not everyone has been brainwashed with futurism since childhood.

>>>You could probably guess what I would recommend.<<

Of course, you would recommend I spiritualize all the verses in the Gospel where Jesus said he was coming in the generation of his disciples. Sorry, Charlie: I am not that hung up on ideology. The plain words of Christ suit me just fine.

>>>This is why I have said that when you interpret Matt 24 completely through the lens of "this generation" ... you will branch out in your consequence tree until it is as wide as possible ... then those consequences need additional foundation for support until the entire eschatological structure stands on a pin ... like a diamond balanced on its point. That point is the date of Revelation as I have said. It all comes down to that ...<<<

I knew beforehand that is the way you would respond. I should have been named Claire Voyant. LOL!

>>>If the book of Revelation was written after 70 AD ... your position vaporizes into nothing. That intellectual fulcrum of commitment is too much for anyone to uphold. It requires constant maintenance and the emotional and intellectual energy expended in defending it is better used elsewhere.<<<

That is a mighty big if, since you have no proof whatsoever it was written after 70 AD. The same applies to your "our proof is everything happens in the future" eschatology. If the book of the Revelation was written prior to the Jewish/Roman War, your entire eschatology comes crashing down like the house of cards it is built upon. The fact that words and phrases indicating an imminent fulfillment (like "must shortly come to pass," or "the time is a hand") are used about 30 times in the Revelation, leads me to believe the proof tilts heavily in my favour.

And there is so much more in my favour. For example, how again does a futurist explain away the blood of the holy apostles, prophets and the righteous generally, that both Babylon the Great and Jerusalem were responsible for? We have been fresh out of prophets and holy apostles for over 1900 years.

What about the voice of the bridegroom and the bride which remarkably disappears from both cities (who also are called whores?) I guess that (those) is just another in a very long list of coincidences that are easily explained away by calling them, say, "coincidences?" (I assumed you might need some help on that one.)

By the way, who is the Antichrist this week? Futurists have claimed about a "zillion" different Antichrist's since the second or third century. No eschatology comes close to creating false prophecies like futurism. No other eschatology needs to in order to survive.

Philip