Timing of the abomination of desolation

[Randy Kluth]

Jesus didn't visibly return in the heavens in 70AD as seen below, his second coming is future unfulfilled, 70AD Preterist eschatology is a farce!

Matthew 24:29-31KJV
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

I'm neither a full nor a partial Preterist. However, I can bring myself to recognize that Jesus came in judgment in 70 AD--not a return in glory, nor a return to this earth, but a coming in judgment. God "came" in the OT to Israel for salvation and for judgment. Big events were described as a "Coming" of God.

In the book of Revelation, you will read that God was "coming" to the 7 churches to bring discipline, judgment, or rewards--it wasn't all an eschatological Coming!

So clearly, Jesus did "come" in 70 AD, just as God always "comes" when He brings serious judgments to the world. It doesn't have to be eschatological to be a divine "coming."

Rev 2.5 If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place.
Rev 2.16 Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.
Rev 3.3 Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; hold it fast, and repent. But if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you.
Rev 3.20 If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.

 

[covenantee]

I don't follow the Jew's religion. I follow The Father through His Son Christ Jesus, so thus I am a Christian.

There were no Christians in Jerusalem when the temple was destroyed in 70 AD. They had all fled in 66 AD, fulfilling Matthew 24:15-16.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Retaining wall, schemaing wall, still part of the old temple complex stones.

The point is, it was not part of the temple itself, which was given specific instructions and dimensions while still in the tabernacle/tent stage. So to add external buildings, or out-buildings, and then call it part of the temple is outrageous.

It is, in fact, a big retaining wall that you speak of. Anything beyond that is playing the dice with God's general instructions about what the temple building was supposed to be.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Right: there was a break. Jesus told them that the Temple would be totally destroyed, Matthew 24:1-2.
Then they all walked over to the Mount of Olives, at least a half hour walk, just to get to the Garden of Gethsemane, near the bottom. Remember; the East Gate was and still is bricked up, they would have had to come out of the Temple Mount via the bridge, now called Robinsons arch and circle around the city wall, then descend past the huge Jewish Cemetery; down into the Kidron valley, thru the rubbish dumped there at that time and up maybe to halfway on the Mt of Olives, where there is a clear platform with a great view. An enterprising Arab took our photo there!

You are hilarious. You will go to any length to deny the obvious, which is that one of the questions the disciples asked Jesus (the other being about His future coming at the end of the age) on the mount of Olives is when the temple buildings would be destroyed. They clearly were referring to something that had been previously talked about when they asked "when will this happen?". When will what happen? What was the last thing they had talked about before that? The temple buildings being destroyed. This is Bible Interpretation 101 and you're failing the class.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The point is, it was not part of the temple itself, which was given specific instructions and dimensions while still in the tabernacle/tent stage. So to add external buildings, or out-buildings, and then call it part of the temple is outrageous.

It is, in fact, a big retaining wall that you speak of. Anything beyond that is playing the dice with God's general instructions about what the temple building was supposed to be.

The lengths that some go to to deny clear scripture is truly unbelievable. Clearly, the temple buildings were destroyed long ago (in 70 AD) just as Jesus said they would be. Why deny something so obvious? The reason is that many people don't understand that Jesus did not just talk about things related to the destruction of the temple buildings, but also talked about things related to His coming and the end of the age. Those are two different events.

Some people seem to think that if they acknowledge that the temple buildings were destroyed in 70 AD and that Jesus talked about it then they have to acknowledge that the entire Olivet Discourse was fulfilled by 70 AD, but that's not the case.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The lengths that some go to to deny clear scripture is truly unbelievable. Clearly, the temple buildings were destroyed long ago (in 70 AD) just as Jesus said they would be. Why deny something so obvious? The reason is that many people don't understand that Jesus did not just talk about things related to the destruction of the temple buildings, but also talked about things related to His coming and the end of the age. Those are two different events.

Some people seem to think that if they acknowledge that the temple buildings were destroyed in 70 AD and that Jesus talked about it then they have to acknowledge that the entire Olivet Discourse was fulfilled by 70 AD, but that's not the case.

I can go with that, even if I don't agree with it. The points you make here at least are reasonable to me. Yes, the destruction of the temple in 70 AD does not mean the Olivet Discourse had nothing to do with the endtime--clearly, it does!

My only argument was that regardless of your view of Matt 24 and Mark 13, Luke 21 undeniably speaks of the historical destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in 70 AD. Most sensible people, who really know the Scriptures, admit this, regardless of what school of prophecy they belong to.

If you will look up some of the historic commentators on Luke 21, you will find this to be true. You will also find to be true that the Early Church largely saw it this way. So why modern futurists, particularly of the Dispensationalist type, want to argue that *all* of the Olivet Discourse has to do with a future AoD and nothing to do with the destruction of the temple in 70 AD is beyond me?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I can go with that, even if I don't agree with it. The points you make here at least are reasonable to me. Yes, the destruction of the temple in 70 AD does not mean the Olivet Discourse had nothing to do with the endtime--clearly, it does!

Right. And I was not expecting you to completely agree with everything I said, so that is not a surprise.

My only argument was that regardless of your view of Matt 24 and Mark 13, Luke 21 undeniably speaks of the historical destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in 70 AD. Most sensible people, who really know the Scriptures, admit this, regardless of what school of prophecy they belong to.

I agree. There are those who acknowledge that Luke 21:20-24 refers to that event, but then they deny that Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20 are parallel passages to that one, which I believe is only because of doctrinal bias and not for any good reason.

If you will look up some of the historic commentators on Luke 21, you will find this to be true.

Yes, I already knew this.

You will also find to be true that the Early Church largely saw it this way. So why modern futurists, particularly of the Dispensationalist type, want to argue that *all* of the Olivet Discourse has to do with a future AoD and nothing to do with the destruction of the temple in 70 AD is beyond me?

I agree. It's complete nonsense.

 

[Truth7t7]

Matthew 24
1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

Matthew 24:1-3 is not about the second coming.

Dispensational futurism is a fraud!!

Of course Matthew 24:3 is about the future second coming and end of this world

Matthew 24:3KJV
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Of course Matthew 24:3 is about the future second coming and end of this world

Matthew 24:3KJV
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

I think we need to examine what Jesus meant by "end of the world?" Why, for example, did Jesus' Disciples pair the "end of the world" with the "destruction of the temple?'

Personally, I think it was because expectation in Israel was that Messiah had come to deliver Israel from the Romans. But if Jesus said that the Romans would destroy the temple, when would salvation for Israel ever come?

Jesus confirmed that Israel's Salvation, as well as his Coming, would be a long ways off, after a long age of Jewish exile, the worst in Israel's history. So the immediate sense of the prophecy was focused on Jesus' concern over his own generation, and how his Disciples would fare in an environment without Jewish religion under the Law and without a place of protection.

Luke 21.20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

 

[ewq1938]

So clearly, Jesus did "come" in 70 AD, just as God always "comes" when He brings serious judgments to the world. It doesn't have to be eschatological to be a divine "coming."

Jesus did not come in 70AD. Jesus never said he would come as part of the destruction of the temple. This was solely some Jew's own fault for rebelling against Rome. Rome punished the Jews, not God. If you rob a bank, it's the law/police/courts that punish you not God.

 

[covenantee]

Of course Matthew 24:3 is about the future second coming and end of this world

Matthew 24:3KJV
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

What is the sign of the second coming, and the sign of the end of the world, in Matthew 24:3?

If Matthew 24:3 is about those events, then Matthew 24:3 will tell us what their signs are.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Jesus did not come in 70AD. Jesus never said he would come as part of the destruction of the temple. This was solely some Jew's own fault for rebelling against Rome. Rome punished the Jews, not God. If you rob a bank, it's the law/police/courts that punish you not God.

So what did you do with the verses I shared with you? Jesus clearly *comes" to dine with people. Are you going to just say, then, that Jesus *does not* come to dine with people? When in the OT the Prophets say that God "comes" to bring judgment on earth, are you then going to say, "No, God does not "come" to bring judgment on earth?

It's as if your claim has more authority than Scriptures. I'm just giving you Scriptures, brother. You could be right, but I'm giving you an idea to think about, and you're just shoving it off

Matt 4.17 From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.”

In this verse the Kingdom "comes." But in coming, it only comes "near." It came near in such a way as to actually affect the world, giving salvation to some and bringing judgment to others. It was not just to hover above the earth, and sort of "be there." No, it drew near to actually impact our lives, in preparation for the eschatological coming in the future, which will bring both salvation and judgment to an apex.

So if the Kingdom has "come" near already, couldn't Jesus come near, in order to bring judgment in 70 AD? I think so. I think that's exactly what he said he would do, and exactly what he did. He didn't come in eschatological judgment, but only in temporal judgment against Israel. And he does this in every generation and in all nations.

Luke 17.30 “It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. 31 On that day no one who is on the housetop, with possessions inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything.

This event took place in the early Church in 70 AD, when the Roman armies approached a 2nd time. Jesus wanted his disciples to literally escape to the hills, since the judgment was not directed at them. They literally came down from housetop, because they did that in the 1st century--not today so much. Those who had taken a long time to prepare for their exodus now had to escape immediately. That was, I believe, 70 AD.

Rev 2.5 If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place.
Rev 2.16 Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.
Rev 3.3 Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; hold it fast, and repent. But if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you.
Rev 3.20 If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.

 

[ewq1938]

So what did you do with the verses I shared with you? Jesus clearly *comes" to dine with people. Are you going to just say, then, that Jesus *does not* come to dine with people?

Those things will happen during one and only coming.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Those things will happen during one and only coming.

If anyone listens to Jesus, he will visit them and eat with them anywhere from 1 to a 2000 years later? So if you listen to Jesus, you just wait until you die, and then in the distant future you become a Christian?

Rev 3.20 If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.

So when you open the door, after being beckoned to do so, nobody shows up for possibly 100s of years?

Isa 13.Wail, for the day of the Lord is near; it will come like destruction from the Almighty.
Isa 29.5 But your many enemies will become like fine dust, the ruthless hordes like blown chaff.
Suddenly, in an instant, 6 the Lord Almighty will come with thunder and earthquake and great noise,
with windstorm and tempest and flames of a devouring fire.
Isa 30.27 See, the Name of the Lord comes from afar, with burning anger and dense clouds of smoke; his lips are full of wrath, and his tongue is a consuming fire.

I don't believe that every time the Lord comes in judgment it is an eschatological coming. You would have a difficult time proving that!

 

[ewq1938]

Rev 3.20 If anyone listens to Jesus, he will visit them and eat with them anywhere from 1 to a 2000 years later? So if you listen to Jesus, you just wait until you die, and then in the distant future you become a Christian?

Rev 3.20 If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.

So when you open the door, after being beckoned to do so, nobody shows up for possibly 100s of years?

That's not literal. Jesus is not coming to literally eat with people. Also, the first and second comings are physical. Christ arrives here in a physical body. Any non-physical comings are not "comings" like the 1st and 2nd ones. This includes when Christ spoke to Paul.

 

[Keraz]

What is the sign of the second coming, and the sign of the end of the world, in Matthew 24:3?

If Matthew 24:3 is about those events, then Matthew 24:3 will tell us what their signs are.

Matthew 24:14 The Gospel of the Kingdom will be preached throughout the earth to all nations and then the end will come.
Not happened yet.

 

[Truth7t7]

So you just dismiss the argument I made, and double down, unthinkingly? Yes, the temple was destroyed symbolically and spiritually, but it was also destroyed *literally.* If you can't bring yourself to admit that Herod's temple was *literally* destroyed in 70 AD, there's nothing more I can say.

Yes the 2nd temple was destroyed in 70AD, this played absolutely no part in fulfillment of Matthew chapter 24, none

The signs and events of Matthew 24 are future, that precedence the future visible second coming of Jesus Christ in the heavens, as seen in Matthew 24:30

 

[Truth7t7]

I'm neither a full nor a partial Preterist. However, I can bring myself to recognize that Jesus came in judgment in 70 AD--not a return in glory, nor a return to this earth, but a coming in judgment. God "came" in the OT to Israel for salvation and for judgment. Big events were described as a "Coming" of God.

In the book of Revelation, you will read that God was "coming" to the 7 churches to bring discipline, judgment, or rewards--it wasn't all an eschatological Coming!

So clearly, Jesus did "come" in 70 AD, just as God always "comes" when He brings serious judgments to the world. It doesn't have to be eschatological to be a divine "coming."

Rev 2.5 If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place.
Rev 2.16 Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.
Rev 3.3 Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; hold it fast, and repent. But if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you.
Rev 3.20 If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.

Yes you deny that a future visible second coming is seen below in Matthew 24:30, and claim this represents a judgment upon Israel

Randy you deny the most illustrative picture of the future, visible, second coming of Jesus Christ in the heavens that is found in scripture, and you desperately try to pass this literal, visible, event off as a "70AD judgment upon Israel" "Sad"!

Sorta like trying to sell Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy off as biblical character's, absolutely "Laughable"!

Why do preterist deny the literal, visible, second coming seen below?

Because it didn't take place in 70AD, and it blows the preterist rubber dinghy out of the water, so it's falsely changed into a 70ADAD sy.bolic judgement upon Israel

Preterist Motto: If it don't fit, change it through symbolic allegory

(The Future Second Coming Of Jesus Christ In The Heavens) Literal, Visible

Matthew 24:29-31KJV
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

 

[Truth7t7]

What is the sign of the second coming, and the sign of the end of the world, in Matthew 24:3?

If Matthew 24:3 is about those events, then Matthew 24:3 will tell us what their signs are.

Matthew 24:3 is the question, and the entire chapter following is the answer

1.) Signs of the second coming
2.) End of this world

"It will be a future generation" that will be eyewitness of the signs that precede the future second coming

1.) What is near even at the doors, the future second coming of Jesus Christ

2.) What is the day and hour no man knows, the future second coming of Jesus Christ

Matthew 24:33-36KJV
33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

 

[covenantee]

Matthew 24:3 is the question, and the entire chapter following is the answer

1.) Signs of the second coming
2.) End of this world

"It will be a future generation" that will be eyewitness of the signs that precede the future second coming

1.) What is near even at the doors, the future second coming of Jesus Christ

2.) What is the day and hour no man knows, the future second coming of Jesus Christ

Matthew 24:33-36KJV
33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

You overlooked the disciples' very first question:

Matthew 24:3
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

"These things" is not referring to the second coming, but to the temple and its destruction in verses 1 and 2.