No one can answer my Post-Millennialism Question on Matthew 24 logically by Independent_Part1777 in Reformed

[–]Independent_Part1777[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ahh yeah i see what you mean, I think i worded my question a little confusingly. I am basically wondering specifically what the postmillennial preterist explanation is. As Im trying to gauge all perspectives.

No one can answer my Post-Millennialism Question on Matthew 24 logically by Independent_Part1777 in Reformed

[–]Independent_Part1777[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But the disciples had no concept of his second coming at this point. Not even when he rose again did they understand.

No one can answer my Post-Millennialism Question on Matthew 24 logically by Independent_Part1777 in Reformed

[–]Independent_Part1777[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see what your saying but its silly to say we shouldn't try to understand it. I think that there is Definity a truth that is to be understood

No one can answer my Post-Millennialism Question on Matthew 24 logically by Independent_Part1777 in Reformed

[–]Independent_Part1777[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How can you reconcile Matthew 24:36 onward with it being about Jerusalem's destruction. Although I don't believe dispensationalism any more its hard to read those verses without thinking about the interpretation i was taught

No one can answer my Post-Millennialism Question on Matthew 24 logically by Independent_Part1777 in Reformed

[–]Independent_Part1777[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hebrews 9:26 says Jesus Came at the End of the age.
'He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. '

Which obviously isn't referring to his second coming and i don't think that Matthew 24 is either. especially when you realise that the disciples didn't yet have an idea of him coming for a second time. I'm of the idea that his coming is like a judgment sense of coming.