THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: My last response to Marcus on the Matthew 24 challenge

Image via Wikipedia

A couple of weeks ago, Mike Felker initiated a challenge on his blog to show why Matthew 24 is either in whole or in part to be fulfilled in the future. We have been going back and forth.  And I have been learning from the experience. He said in the his final post that this was the end of the exchanged but invited me to clarify anything that needs to be clarified. My comments are in red and his are still in black. He was gracious enough to quote the comments of mine he responded to and he bolded them. 

This will be my last response to Marcus in his well-written answers to my MATTHEW 24 CHALLENGE, where I challenge anyone to show me a verse in Matthew 24 which demands a fulfillment beyond the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. Here is the dialogue thus far:

Marcus' initial response

My response to Marcus

Marcus' second response

The verse in question is Matthew 24:3. I have looked it up in 5 translations and two out of three of them use the word "world". I agree that Jesus did not use the word kosmos - the word used is aion. I think "age" is the correct rendering...but what "age" is being discussed? I didn't discuss this in my first post because it never occurred to me that not all my brothers saw the "end of the age" as "end of the world". Let's look at the context. In verse 2 Jesus tells all listening that the temple was going to be destroyed. I think Mike and I agree that Jesus meant that the temple destruction being at a different time than His coming and the end of the age. Therefore I don't think AD 70 can fulfills the entire prophecy Jesus gave in Matthew 24. If the disciples thought that his coming and the destruction of the temple were near simultaneous events then it appears to me that the ask the same thing twice and that does not seem reasonable to me. So I ask what did the disciples thought was ending? Israel as a sovereign nation? No, i think they meant the point at which Jesus would set up his kingdom and take control.

But why can't the disciples be asking two questions in referencing the same event? I think it would help to look at the parallel accounts to show that this doesn't demand a post 70 A.D. fulfillment:

"When will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age." (Matthew 24:3)

"When will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are going to be fulfilled." (Mark 13:4)

"When therefore will these things happen? And what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?" (Luke 21:7)

Interestingly, if Mark and Luke are parallel accounts to Matthew 24 (which I don't see how anyone could doubt), why would they omit the main event; namely, the second coming? My answer is that it is because a "second coming" wasn't in the scope of the disciple's questions at all. But just to be as fair and open minded as I can, I would be willing to grant that this verse could be used to support either position. Why? Because, if the context was speaking of a literal second coming, then it would only be appropriate to assume that Jesus was actually answering the disciple's question correctly. But if the context doesn't reference any second coming, then we would have to assume that Jesus didn't answer their question.

I appreciate Mike a great deal, for it just as a the Bible says indeed -  "iron sharpens iron". He makes a good point that i had not considered before this exchange: Do we know that the disciples had in mind at this time that Jesus was going to have a second coming? At this point they didn't even get that Jesus had to be crucified or resurrected. I'd say an emphatic "No!" And I apologize for some of the language I had used earlier pointing to the second coming as we think of it. They had in mind that He was going to come on a white horse and a sword and slaughter Romans and re-establish Israel as a sovereign nation. I really think the disciples wanted to know two things: one - When will the Temple be destroy and two - when will the end of the age happen? I still don't think that neither Jesus or the disciples thought the two events were the same event.

I totally agree that Jesus was referring to Antiochus Ephiphanes and making a parallel. However during the Jewish War (c 70 AD) there had been no idol set up in the Temple. It only almost happened then. I totality agree that we don't know really know what the "abomination" is and i don't think the Left Behind series has truth I wanna base my life one but i don't think the events of 70 AD completely fulfill the prophesy. Some of it like this part I think speaks to 70 AD and the future.

With all due respect to Marcus, this is merely an opinion based on ignorance. The reason I say this is because, even in Marcus' own admission, "we don't really know what the abomination is." And if we really don't know what the abomination is, then how can he claim that it wasn't fulfilled in 70 A.D.? I submit that the clues provided in the context suggest a very strong basis by which this event was fulfilled in the disciple's lifetime:

I've got to admit that I don't like ignorance being ascribed to an opinion that I've spent years of prayer and research and study on, but I realize that Mike isn't trying to insult me and the last thing I want is to give the devil a foot hold when there none intended. 

1. In 24:1, Jesus was clearly referencing the temple, which at least should grant the possibility that the "abomination" was in reference to this.

2. The pronouns "you" throughout the context of Matthew 24 strongly supports the idea that all the events were in reference to the disciples. If it were in reference to a group thousands of years later, wouldn't "they" or "them" be more often implemented?

3. "This generation" was in reference to the disciples, not some group thousands of years in the future, as i'll discuss in more detail.

4. The parallel account in Luke 21:20 supports the possibility that the "desolation" was in reference to Jerusalem itself, not specifically the temple: "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near." So what is the "desolation" in reference to? Jerusalem being surrounded by armies. Yes, this "desolation" certainly would include the temple, since it resides in Jerusalem as well as the possibility that it was desolated in some way similar to what Antiochus Ephiphanes did.

Therefore, on what basis does the reference to the "abomination" demand a post-A.D. 70 fulfillment?

I don't understand how these 4 points show that the what was "standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—" was fulfilled in 70 AD. I think each of the parallel accounts and Matthew itself clarifies not just the Temple but all of Jerusalem would be destroyed - no dispute there. But how was there an abomination causing desolation standing in the Holy place in 70 AD? 

The discussion where Mike explains how you can see that Jesus' coming could be explained as happening in AD 70 really didn't move me. If I understand correctly, Mike is arguing that the "Son of Man coming on clouds" refers to judgment and punishing Israel. He points out that there are many Old Testament passages including Jesus later on using the language to say He will be vindicated. Thing is, the destruction of Jerusalem did not make Jews who denied Jesus embrace Jesus. The Roman went on like nothing happened. For them, it was another day at the office. I just don't see how Jesus coming on clouds "with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other." can be found fulfilled in AD 70.

But where in the text does it say that the "coming on clouds" is what triggers the Jews to embrace Jesus? From what I can tell, there is nothing in the text which suggests such a thing. And as I pointed out in my last response, the "coming in the clouds" has nothing to do with a "coming to earth." So even in what seems to be Marcus' view, even a "second coming" scenario in implementing this text wouldn't support such a conclusion either. But with that aside, I don't see how 24:31 is meant to be a direct or consequential result of 24:30. And as for Marcus not being able to see how v. 31 could be in reference to the first century, I think the details of such a discussion would have to be reserved for another time, as I intended this discussion to be more focused upon one or two texts.

I was referring to Matthew 26:64 when I said that Jesus coming on clouds would signal Jews to embrace Jesus because that is when Jesus claimed he would be vindicated. As for verses 30 and 31 I still want to know how that was fullfilled in 70 AD? Jesus said in vs 31 and 31:

³⁰"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. ³¹And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

I've always had the filling that once these words were fulfilled nothing could ever be the same again.

I think you have a point but "this generation" is translated by some as "this race" as in the human race.


But which translations and on what basis? Is there anything lexically which would merit such a translation? Also, check out the context in which "this generation" is used in other places. Would "this race" be appropriate in those places as well? I think that a lot of justification would need to be made before implementing such a conclusion.

I admit that I haven't really dug to find out if this variant translation is warranted but it is footnote in every single NIV I've ever looked at. It's even in online NIvs. It may be just a textual variant but I think it is worth consideration. Look at this example: Matthew 24:34

I want to thank Marcus for such a profitable discussion and hope that the readers have benefitted from the interaction. I think this goes to show how two people can disagree in a respectful manner while remaining brothers in the Lord. I'll leave the last word for Marcus so that he can clarify any points that he sees fit.

I really appreciate this exercise. It has been helpful and extremely profitable and thank God for Mike. Something else did occur to me Matthew 24: 9-14 did not happen in 70 AD but is still being fulfilled even today.

⁹"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. ¹⁰At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, ¹¹and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. ¹²Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, ¹³but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. ¹⁴And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: My last response to Marcus on the Matthew 24 challenge

Catholic Apologist Dr. Art Sippo Says: Calvinists Are Psychotics

James Swan has posted a great article showing that Roman Catholic apologist Art Sippo does not argue fairly. In trying to use psychology to discredit Martin Luther, Sippo manages to to take a swipe at Calvinism. Swan quoted Sippo:

My charge that Luther was flagrantly psychotic when he wrote [The Bondage of the Will] is a clinical one. Luther makes a number of seriosuly[sic] disturbed remarks in this book. Among them, he actually says that the human mind is like a horse with an empty saddle and that either God or the Devil rides in it. This is clearly not the perception of a normal human mind. When I studied psychiatry in med school the professor told us "There are only 2 kinds of people who deny free will: psychotics and Calvinists." In my experience, there is only ONE kind of person. [source]

I read The Bondage of the Will and I see no evidence of that at all. In addition Martin Luther's work pre-dated John Calvin! Martin Luther was not a Calvinist. Swan did a great job to showing that Sippo misquoted Luther and I totally disagree that denying free will is crazy and that isn't really what Calvinism does. Just like its stupid to accuse all Arminians and non-Calvinists of denying God's sovereignty and saying that we get to tell God what we are going to do. These are gross over simplifications. we need to pray for Dr. Sippo.

Catholic Apologist Dr. Art Sippo Says: Calvinists Are Psychotics

YouTube - Hovind debates Strayer,Reisbig, and Schlieter

Image via Wikipedia

I found this Debate on YouTube and I have enjoyed it. I have to give Hovind some kudos for going up against 3 scientific proponents from 3 different disciplines at the same time. I think Hovind did a good job because Evolution has a lot of problems and all he had to do was point them out. For example, I think he killed them on the whale evolution. I don't agree with all of Hovind's theology because (for a start):

1. He's a Young Earth Creationist and I don't think the Bible gives us enough information alone to figure out the age of the earth or the universe.
2. I think he is a King Jame Only advocate which leads him to think that Unicorns are in the Bible.
3. He rejects the Big Bang Theory which really vexes me. By agreeing with the Big Bang Theory people who deny God agree with the Bible. Hovind does not seem to understand that. The theory says that all space, time, matter, and energy did burst into existence out of nothing. This is supported by Genesis 1:1 the Hebrew word we translate "created" carries with it the idea that the creation is out of nothing.

I thought many of the arguments on the evolution side are horrible. For example arguing that a designer does not make sense because the design is flawed is just as stupid as arguing that the Bible may be wrong because it does not have a bibliography. Both were used by way. Arguing that the design is flawed presupposes that you know what the design and purpose are. I was glad to see Hovind shred that argument with a concrete example of the difference between the human eye and an octopus' eye. When the scientific arguments failed the evolutionists went into philosophy and it imploded even faster. I was expecting better of the other side.




YouTube - hovind debate

Atheism is Dead: Accurately Quoting Bart Ehrman, part 1

Bart Ehrman via last.fm

Mariano is starting a great series on the work of Bart Ehrman. He is dissecting Ehrman's work and closely scrutinizing it to see how much weight it can support. Unfortunately, not much. Read the article at the link below.

Atheism is Dead: Accurately Quoting Bart Ehrman, part 1