Are We Approaching The End Times?

[Thoughtful Monk]

I apologize if you think we are off topic, you may or may not be aware of Orthodox Preterism. So, to be clear, I feel I'm on topic because I'm pointing out that what you cited in your OP specifically Matt 24 from the Preterist point of view all of that pretty much happened in 70 AD. That was my point all along. Again, I apologize if that wasn't clear.

Thanks for the apology.

[Cow Poke]

Might be more interesting if you combined them

As I get older, they all seem to run together.

[rogue06]

But I only tell one at a time.

Might be more interesting if you combined them

[Cow Poke]

You have two stories right?

But I only tell one at a time.

[rogue06]

I have a hard head - I think I'll just crash on through.

You have two stories right?

[Littlejoe]

Hey, seanD and Littlejoe, your conversation is interesting but is taking the thread off topic. Kindly return to the topic. Thanks.

I apologize if you think we are off topic, you may or may not be aware of Orthodox Preterism. So, to be clear, I feel I'm on topic because I'm pointing out that what you cited in your OP specifically Matt 24 from the Preterist point of view all of that pretty much happened in 70 AD. That was my point all along. Again, I apologize if that wasn't clear.

[Cow Poke]

Sheer logic says we're getting closer.

There a time Christ is going to return. He hasn't yet. Time is marching on. We're on the time conveyer belt.

[Thoughtful Monk]

Hey, seanD and Littlejoe, your conversation is interesting but is taking the thread off topic. Kindly return to the topic. Thanks.

[seanD]

Well, since we are in a thread about "are we approaching the end times" I'm not sure why you reasons would be considered a side-track but...Ok...

It's not weird at all. It's actually the way Bible students are trained to read and exegete scripture. Since the Bible canon was closed in the what...end of the 1st century(?) then we know the authors/speakers had the original hearers and readers in mind, not 21st century Americans when they spoke or wrote. So, while we can apply the Truth and Godly/Biblical principles to our modern lives. I did a quick Google search and this article explains it very well: https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-apply-today.html

This is the way I learned as well as most other trained Bible students I know (Pastors, Missionaries, Evangelists, Chaplains etc.)

I think it's weird that you can read someone else's mail and assume it's written to you.

I think it will get sidetracked because there's no way you and I will agree on things such as Matthew 24:29-31. There's no way I can possibly accept that passage as pertaining to the 70 AD war and not Jesus' return. Neither you or I will convince the other, so I don't see any point in discussing those subjects.

Obviously the writers of the first century weren't addressing modern Christians 2,000 years later. I get that. But to say that the OD only applies to the disciples in the first century and thus has no relevance to us today is setting a precedent you can't escape in how you interpret the rest of the bible if you want to stay consistent.

[Littlejoe]

Well, there's a lot of reasons why I don't believe the OD is just addressed to the disciples, which I won't get into lest the thread is sidetracked. But that's kind of a weird approach to biblical exegesis and seems to imply it was only relevant to the disciples. Where do you draw the line there. How do you know everything in the bible wasn't only relevant to the folks of the first century?

Well, since we are in a thread about "are we approaching the end times" I'm not sure why you reasons would be considered a side-track but...Ok...

It's not weird at all. It's actually the way Bible students are trained to read and exegete scripture. Since the Bible canon was closed in the what...end of the 1st century(?) then we know the authors/speakers had the original hearers and readers in mind, not 21st century Americans when they spoke or wrote. So, while we can apply the Truth and Godly/Biblical principles to our modern lives. I did a quick Google search and this article explains it very well: https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-apply-today.html

This is the way I learned as well as most other trained Bible students I know (Pastors, Missionaries, Evangelists, Chaplains etc.)

I think it's weird that you can read someone else's mail and assume it's written to you.

[seanD]

LittleJoe's comment is perfectly correct, and in no way means that the statements were relevant only to people of the first century. If, for example, a first century reader understood "the sun was darkened" to mean the same that we mean when we say "the sky was darkened," interpreting that statement to mean something happened to the sun would wrest the scripture. More than a few scholars fail to take first century understandings of the language and its conventions into account, which results in less than acceptable teachings on a broad range of issues - and conflicting doctrines.

That gets into a different subject. Literal vs. figurative. I don't think that's what LJ was addressing. But we know things like "the sky was darkened" can be both figurative and literal. Sometimes it might even be both at different times or perceived differently at different times. "The sky turning dark" at Jesus' crucifixion could have easily been interpreted figuratively by a Hebrew as a sad day of gloom during the death of Messiah prior had it been predicted in scripture prior.

[tabibito]

Well, there's a lot of reasons why I don't believe the OD is just addressed to the disciples, which I won't get into lest the thread is sidetracked. But that's kind of a weird approach to biblical exegesis and seems to imply it was only relevant to the disciples. Where do you draw the line there. How do you know everything in the bible wasn't only relevant to the folks of the first century?

LittleJoe's comment is perfectly correct, and in no way means that the statements were relevant only to people of the first century. If, for example, a first century reader understood "the sun was darkened" to mean the same that we mean when we say "the sky was darkened," interpreting that statement to mean something happened to the sun would wrest the scripture. More than a few scholars fail to take first century understandings of the language and its conventions into account, which results in less than acceptable teachings on a broad range of issues - and conflicting doctrines.

[seanD]

Sure, you know that I'm an Orthodox Preterist (to be clear to those who don't know), but I really want to know why futurist take the passage globally instead of whom it was addressed to. When I took some of my training in Bible studies, it was stressed that proper exegesis started with "what did the passage mean to the original recipients" (original hearers/readers), and the collolary of "it can never mean to you what it could NOT have meant to the original recipients".

Well, there's a lot of reasons why I don't believe the OD is just addressed to the disciples, which I won't get into lest the thread is sidetracked. But that's kind of a weird approach to biblical exegesis and seems to imply it was only relevant to the disciples. Where do you draw the line there. How do you know everything in the bible wasn't only relevant to the folks of the first century?

[Littlejoe]

I understand that you hold the preterist view. Matthew 24:6-8 and everything described in the OD is only really significant to those in Jerusalem prior to 70 AD, so I guess you can say it didn't matter how that information was relayed to the rest of the world. The futurist believes the OD is global-centric (though I myself don't deny that the OD had at least some significance to the Christians prior to the war). Therefore, the only thing that distinguishes the events Jesus describes on a global level is how that information is relayed to rest of the world -- our communication technology.

Sure, you know that I'm an Orthodox Preterist (to be clear to those who don't know), but I really want to know why futurist take the passage globally instead of whom it was addressed to. When I took some of my training in Bible studies, it was stressed that proper exegesis started with "what did the passage mean to the original recipients" (original hearers/readers), and the collolary of "it can never mean to you what it could NOT have meant to the original recipients".

[seanD]

Ah! Ok...but, Jesus was talking specifically to the Disciples in private, in answer to their questions. Why do you think Jesus was addressing us and not them?

I understand that you hold the preterist view. Matthew 24:6-8 and everything described in the OD is only really significant to those in Jerusalem prior to 70 AD, so I guess you can say it didn't matter how that information was relayed to the rest of the world. The futurist believes the OD is global-centric (though I myself don't deny that the OD had at least some significance to the Christians prior to the war). Therefore, the only thing that distinguishes the events Jesus describes on a global level is how that information is relayed to rest of the world -- our communication technology.