When did the 2nd temple literally initially cease being the holy place?

[covenantee]

No point continuing? Why can't we talk about this AND the other points I made? You expect me to address this while you don't have to address my points?

Was the gospel preached in China back then? In all of the nations of Africa? Japan? India? The Americas? Russia? It was preached in literally all nations?

OK. Permit me to cite Bro. Woodrow below. Then back to "all nations". Since you apparently disagree with Paul's definition of "all nations", then is his definition wrong, or is your definition wrong?

WARS AND RUMORS OF WARS

We are told that when Jesus gave this prophecy, the Roman Empire was experiencing a general peace within its borders. But Jesus explained to his disciples that they would be hearing of wars, rumors of wars, and commotions. And did they? Yes, within a short time the Empire was filled with strife, insurrection, and wars.

Before the fall of Jerusalem, four Emperors came to violent deaths within the space of 18 months. According to the historian Suetonius (who lived during the latter part of the first century and the beginning of the second), Nero “drove a dagger into his throat.” Galba was run down by horsemen. A soldier cut off his head and “thrusting his thumb into the mouth”, carried the horrid trophy about. Otho “stabbed himself” in the breast. Vitellius was killed by slow torture and then “dragged by a hook into the Tiber.” We can understand that such fate falling on the Emperors would naturally spread distress and insecurity through the Empire.

In the Annals of Tacitus, a Roman who wrote a history which covers the period prior to 70 A. D., we find such expressions as these “Disturbances in Germany”, “commotions in Africa”, “commotions in Thrace”, “insurrections in Gaul”, “intrigues among the Parthians”, “the war in Britain”, “war in Armenia.”

Among the Jews, the times became turbulent. In Seleucia, 50,000 Jews were killed. There was an uprising against them in Alexandria. In a battle between the Jews and Syrians in Caesarea, 20,000 were killed. During these times, Caligula ordered his statue placed in the temple at Jerusalem. The Jews refused to do this and lived in constant fear that the Emperor’s armies would be sent into Palestine. This fear became so real that some of them did not even bother to till their fields.

But though there would be wars, rumours of wars, and commotions, Jesus told his disciples: “See that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the END is not yet.” The word “end” that is used here is not the same Greek word as in the expression “end of the world.” (See footnote on page 59). As Barnes says, the end here referred to is “the end of the Jewish economy; the destruction of Jerusalem.”

Wars, rumors of wars, and commotions were of a general nature. These things were not signs of the end; to the contrary, they were given to show that the end was NOT yet. None of these things would be the sign which would cause the disciples to flee into the mountains.

Great Prophecies of the Bible
Ralph Woodrow

 

[Zao is life]

Apparently, even non-Pretribbers do that at times as well. In Luke 21 Jesus calls it wrath. In Matthew 24 He calls it tribulation. If Luke's account is involving unbelieving Jews, that would mean the wrath is God's wrath.

If the tribulation in Matthew 24 is involving persecuting the church, obviously one can't apply God's wrath in that case. Except some deny that the tribulation in Mathew 24 is pertaining to tribulation of the church. As if there is no such thing as great tribulation pertaining to the church.

3 different views per the following, yet they all have this in common, great tribulation is involving being upon unbelieving Jews.

@Spiritual Israelite interprets Matthew 24:15-21 to be pertaining to tribulation of unbelieving Jews in the first century.

Preterists interpret Matthew 24:15-21 to be pertaining to tribulation of unbelieving Jews in the first century.

Pretribbers interpret Matthew 24:15-21 to be pertaining to tribulation of unbelieving Jews in the 21st century after the church has been raptured first.

They all think great tribulation is upon the Jews. None of them think it's upon the church. Meaning in the Discourse. But somehow, between these 3 views above, one of these views is correct? How about this instead? Between these 3 views above, none of these views is correct?

Imagine this, the fact the Discourse involves events pertaining to the first century through His return. Except Jesus was completely silent in the Discourse in regards to Revelation 7:9, 14. That the alleged tribulation of the Jews is a greater tribulation than it is of the church. As if something local can surpass something global in greatness. Clearly, no matter how you look at it, the greatest tribulation this world will ever see is meaning the one recorded in Matthew 24:21. And that some insist this is a local tribulation and that it is greater than a global one. They have things backwards. That's what doctrinal bias will do to one at times.

Matthew 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.


Revelation 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
Revelation 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

Anyone that takes the former to be involving 70 AD better not dare insist the latter one is greater, the fact the former already plainly says this---For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not---no, nor ever shall be. What part of this--no, nor ever shall be---are some failing to comprehend? It clearly means it can't be equaled nor surpassed in greatness.

Thank you. I never knew that pre-tribbers believe that Matthew 24:15-21 involves the Jews in the 21st century, "post-rapture" of the saints. Besides that, your points are very valid. I like the angle you're looking at it from. It gives me more clarity regarding their thinking, "It has to be about the Jews".

To me their arguments are like a rusty old 1968 Ford that doesn't start without a push, backfires all the way and drives at 5km/hr top speed (and only in reverse gear), that needs to be topped up with oil and water every 500m, whose emergency indicator lights flash every time you turn the fan on.

- because it requires picking and choosing when the most basic conjunction words mean what they mean, and when they don't.

And that's putting things nicely.

There seems to be an inability to understand that the church cannot be taken by the Lord to be with Him as it is now, without that purging out of the dross, the separating of the bad fish from the good fish - the purging that's coming BEFORE He does. It's shocking and unsettling because Jesus said,

Matthew 24
10 And then shall many be offended [G4624 skandalizo - caused to stumble], and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.

Same word used in Mark 4:17:

"And (these) have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word’s sake, immediately they are offended [G4624 skandalizo - caused to stumble]. "

Those who apply Matthew 24:21 to the Jews or to any other group of Christians who went through tribulation at any other time EXCEPT the time of the end leading up to his return that Jesus was applying it to, are going to be caught completely off-guard - given the intensity: "such as not been since the beginning of the world to this time, nor ever shall be".

"Nor ever shall be" also means that Jesus will return immediately after that point - when the "two witnesses" have been overcome and killed by the beast ascended from the abyss.​

 

[Zao is life]

How about this instead? Between these 3 views above, none of these views is correct?

I go with the above.

 

[Timtofly]

Do you not think we are made up of 3 parts: body, soul and spirit?

1 Thessalonians 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

That verse does not say your spirit is in you, nor controlled in a tangible way by your soul. Your spirit is not your mind nor your heart.

You are spiritually dead, so seperated from your spirit, just like you would be physically dead seperated from your body. Your spirit is not dead, but with God. Your spirit was never dead, you were, because you have been seperated from your spirit since conception.

Now a reprobate mind can turn your spirit into a demon, and that is why Paul said to keep your spirit blameless. Sin that is unforgiven, and in a state of reprobation per Romans 1, is not a very good state to be in. Those judged at Sodom, were of a reprobate mind, and their spirits produced demonic activity in the unseen spiritual world.

All souls ever conceived were given the Holy Spirit in lieu of one's own spirit, to lead them to the saving knowledge of God's grace. It is the mind and will of a soul that strives against the Holy Spirit, not one's own spirit.

We are created in God's image. The Holy Spirit is not something within God. Why would you limit your own spirit to be something material inside of you? We have a tangible spirit just like the Holy Spirit, and it does not reside in us. At the Second Coming, we will put on the spirit, symbolized by the putting on of white robes in Revelation 6. Then we will shine like the sun and stars, like Jesus did on the mount of Transfiguration. A spirit is a flaming fire.

1 John 3:2

"Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure."

So, yes. We need to keep our spirit blameless, by purifying ourself and confessing our sins to God, to prevent having a reprobate mind. One day we will put the spirit on and shine like the stars. The OT redeemed knew the difference between the stars as flaming spirits and our own spirit, but what the spirit was, was never defined in the OT. They were mentioned though, if you do a study on them. But they reside in heaven around the throne, unless they are a demon, and have fled from God's presence.

Because I accept we are 3 parts is why the 5th Seal is the rapture and the Second Coming. The robe of white is the spirit that we put on. John says we shall be like Jesus at His appearing. That is why I accept Adam physically died the instant he disobeyed God, and his soul changed bodies just as instantly as we will at the Second Coming. His robe of white removed just the same as ours will be put on. Adam was placed into death, and lost his spirit. We will be changed and gain back what was lost.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

OK

So far so good

No, people still die in the millennium. They just live a long time. Believers don't die any more then of course. He ends death for us.

You agreed that there will be no more sin when He comes, but disagree that there will be no more death? That makes no sense. No more sin means no more death. Clearly, you do believe there will be more sin after He comes. You believe there will be a lot of sin occurring during a little season that you think occurs 1,000 years after He comes.

Paul indicated that "the end" includes the end of death (1 Cor 15:26) and that the end comes when Jesus comes (1 Cor 15:22-28).

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

OK. Permit me to cite Bro. Woodrow below. Then back to "all nations". Since you apparently disagree with Paul's definition of "all nations", then is his definition wrong, or is your definition wrong?

Don't talk to me like this. I would never disagree with Paul. Imagine me telling you that you apparently disagree with Paul. Can you not see that comes across as if you think I don't think Paul spoke the truth? I disagree with you and your understanding of Paul. You apparently think that he was talking about literally all nations in the entire world rather than the nations of the known world at that time. I disagree with that. Whatever Paul meant, I know he was correct. So, if you can prove that he meant literally all nations in the world rather than the known world at that time, then I surely would agree with that because I know that Paul only spoke the truth.

WARS AND RUMORS OF WARS

We are told that when Jesus gave this prophecy, the Roman Empire was experiencing a general peace within its borders. But Jesus explained to his disciples that they would be hearing of wars, rumors of wars, and commotions. And did they? Yes, within a short time the Empire was filled with strife, insurrection, and wars.

Before the fall of Jerusalem, four Emperors came to violent deaths within the space of 18 months. According to the historian Suetonius (who lived during the latter part of the first century and the beginning of the second), Nero “drove a dagger into his throat.” Galba was run down by horsemen. A soldier cut off his head and “thrusting his thumb into the mouth”, carried the horrid trophy about. Otho “stabbed himself” in the breast. Vitellius was killed by slow torture and then “dragged by a hook into the Tiber.” We can understand that such fate falling on the Emperors would naturally spread distress and insecurity through the Empire.

In the Annals of Tacitus, a Roman who wrote a history which covers the period prior to 70 A. D., we find such expressions as these “Disturbances in Germany”, “commotions in Africa”, “commotions in Thrace”, “insurrections in Gaul”, “intrigues among the Parthians”, “the war in Britain”, “war in Armenia.”

Among the Jews, the times became turbulent. In Seleucia, 50,000 Jews were killed. There was an uprising against them in Alexandria. In a battle between the Jews and Syrians in Caesarea, 20,000 were killed. During these times, Caligula ordered his statue placed in the temple at Jerusalem. The Jews refused to do this and lived in constant fear that the Emperor’s armies would be sent into Palestine. This fear became so real that some of them did not even bother to till their fields.

But though there would be wars, rumours of wars, and commotions, Jesus told his disciples: “See that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the END is not yet.” The word “end” that is used here is not the same Greek word as in the expression “end of the world.” (See footnote on page 59). As Barnes says, the end here referred to is “the end of the Jewish economy; the destruction of Jerusalem.”

Wars, rumors of wars, and commotions were of a general nature. These things were not signs of the end; to the contrary, they were given to show that the end was NOT yet. None of these things would be the sign which would cause the disciples to flee into the mountains.

Great Prophecies of the Bible
Ralph Woodrow

This is not a convincing argument to me at all. I'm not saying those things lead right up until the end. I never said that. They are things that happen as time gets closer to the end, but they do not indicate that the end has come yet. No, the things referenced in verses 9-14 are what indicate that the end is near. But, the global wars, earthquakes and famines indicate that Jesus was talking in a global sense in Matthew 24:4-14. So, "the end" that He was talking about was the end of the world as we know it. The end of this temporal age. It makes no sense to think that He would speak in a global sense in relation to "the end" of Jerusalem.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The beast is alive at the end of the 1000 years says the bible.

Rev 20:7 7 And when the thousand years are expired..

10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever

The beast was thrown into the lake when He returned. After the 1000 years he was still there. You are proven wrong

This proves nothing except that you assume what is described in Revelation 20 chronologically follows what is described in Revelation 19. But, the book of Revelation is not all chronological. The most obvious proof of that is Revelation 11 and 12. Clearly, the birth and ascension of Christ, referenced in Revelation 12, did not occur after the seventh trumpet, referenced at the end of Revelation 11.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The disciples then asked two questions in Matthew 24 in response to our Lord’s words.

Matthew 24:3 records:

1. “When shall these things be?”
2. “What shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?”

Mark 13:4 records:

1. “When shall these things be?”
2. “What shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled (finished or ended)?”

Luke 21:7 records:

1. “When shall these things be?”
2. “What sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?”

Christ addressed both questions and both eras in chapter 24. However, because of the intermingling of His response, many Bible students suffer great confusion in identifying what aspect of the teaching relates to AD 70 and what relates to the second coming.

In His response to the first question in Matthew 24:15-22, He spoke of the end of the 40 year probationary period (AD 70), saying, “When ye (the disciples) therefore shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, whoso readeth, let him understand: Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: For then shall be great tribulation (thlipsis), such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.”

Mark 13:14-20 says, “when ye (the disciples) shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains: And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of his house: And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to take up his garment. But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter. For in those days shall be tribulation (thlipsis), such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be. And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.”

This can only refer to the wrath of God being poured out on Jerusalem that destroyed the existing socio-political/cultural/religious system of Judaism, which was an offence to God. This people were decimated. Their religious system was effectively brought to nought. Nothing before AD 70, or after it, could compare in regard to the extent of its demise. Luke 21:20-24 reinforces that we are looking at AD 70.

Luke’s parallel passage, in Luke 21:20-24, records, “when ye (the disciples) shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! For there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.”

Whatever people are in view in whatever location (the Bible says Jerusalem and Judea not Johannesburg or Jaffa), they are limited if fleeing “on the sabbath day” (Saturday). This certainly isn't a restriction to American Christians, maybe Israeli ones. Now, why would such a matter be a limitation to one fleeing the great tribulation? Simple. Because of the strict Pharisaic Law in Israel at that time that restricted the actual distance a Jew could walk on the Sabbath day (Friday sunset to Saturday sunset), as it was a religious day of rest. Jews were only allowed to only walk three quarters of a mile on the Sabbath before they would break the day of rest. At the time of Jesus the Jewish authorities closed the gates of the city on the Sabbath; therefore flight from the city on that day would have been extremely difficult. How can the Futurists serious relate such a restriction (1) to the Church and (2) the period preceding "the end of the age"? This last assertion further supports the view that the Jewish capital is the setting and the Jews living in that city (prior to AD 70) are the subjects receiving this warning.

Agree completely.

@Zao is life claims that Jesus didn't answer the question about the temple buildings at all. I see no reason at all to believe that. Especially when Luke 21:20-24 clearly matches the description of what happened in 70 AD when the temple buildings were destroyed. So, I don't understand how he can deny that Luke 21:20-24 is the answer to that question. But, he can't see how any abomination of desolation occurred at that time, so he can't see how Matthew 24:14-22 and Mark 13:14-20 can relate to 70 AD. At least he doesn't deny that Matthew 24:15-22, Mark 13:14-20 and Luke 21:20-24 are parallel accounts like @Davidpt does.

@Davidpt claims that Luke 21:20-24 is not a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20. I invite him to take a close look at how you compared all 3 passages above and then to explain to us how those could possibly not all be talking about the same thing. He also needs to explain exactly how Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20 should be understood if they are meant to be understood spiritually rather than physically. What would it mean for it to be difficult for pregnant women and nursing mothers to flee in a spiritual sense? Why should people pray that they wouldn't have to flee during the winter or on the Sabbath in a spiritual sense? What does Judea represent in a spiritual sense? But, he never addresses these questions.

The question shouldn't be whether Jesus answered the question about the temple buildings at all or whether or not His answer was recorded in the Matthew 24 and Mark 13 accounts. The question instead should be where did He answer that question in each account? And the most obvious text that relates to that question in each account is found in Matthew 24:15-22, Mark 13:14-20 and Luke 21:20-24.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

What kind of evidence do you need?

I've cited the multiple sources. Undoubtedly there are more. For those which may be incorrect, there are others which are correct.

Ultimately it's Paul whom you would need to prove incorrect.

Do you have any evidence of the gospel being preached in China or India or in the southern part of Africa before 60 AD?

 

[covenantee]

Do you have any evidence of the gospel being preached in China or India or in the southern part of Africa before 60 AD?

Disciple Thomas went to India in 52 AD and was slain there in 72 AD.

What's wrong with the evidence of the Gospel reaching Britain that I provided?

 

[covenantee]

Don't talk to me like this. I would never disagree with Paul. Imagine me telling you that you apparently disagree with Paul. Can you not see that comes across as if you think I don't think Paul spoke the truth? I disagree with you and your understanding of Paul. You apparently think that he was talking about literally all nations in the entire world rather than the nations of the known world at that time. I disagree with that. Whatever Paul meant, I know he was correct. So, if you can prove that he meant literally all nations in the world rather than the known world at that time, then I surely would agree with that because I know that Paul only spoke the truth.


This is not a convincing argument to me at all. I'm not saying those things lead right up until the end. I never said that. They are things that happen as time gets closer to the end, but they do not indicate that the end has come yet. No, the things referenced in verses 9-14 are what indicate that the end is near. But, the global wars, earthquakes and famines indicate that Jesus was talking in a global sense in Matthew 24:4-14. So, "the end" that He was talking about was the end of the world as we know it. The end of this temporal age. It makes no sense to think that He would speak in a global sense in relation to "the end" of Jerusalem.

"Wars, rumors of wars, and commotions were of a general nature. These things were not signs of the end; to the contrary, they were given to show that the end was NOT yet. None of these things would be the sign which would cause the disciples to flee into the mountains."

Isn't that what you're saying?

 

[Davidpt]

@Davidpt claims that Luke 21:20-24 is not a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20. I invite him to take a close look at how you compared all 3 passages above and then to explain to us how those could possibly not all be talking about the same thing. He also needs to explain exactly how Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20 should be understood if they are meant to be understood spiritually rather than physically. What would it mean for it to be difficult for pregnant women and nursing mothers to flee in a spiritual sense? Why should people pray that they wouldn't have to flee during the winter or on the Sabbath in a spiritual sense? What does Judea represent in a spiritual sense? But, he never addresses these questions.

You don't get it. Probably never will. At least not in this lifetime. One doesn't have to explain what those things mean if not meaning in the literal sense. Everything else I have been arguing already proves it's not literal events involving 70 AD.

Arguments, such as. Matthew 24:21 and Daniel 12:1 are referring to the same era of time, the same events. Daniel 12:2 proves Matthew 24:21 is not meaning 70 AD since no resurrection event ever followed 70 AD.

Arguments, such as.

Matthew 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Obviously, this is the greatest tribulation this world will ever see and experience, regardless when it is meaning. It can't be equalled nor surpassed in greatness. That presents a major poblem if this great tribulation is not the same as the great tribulation per the following. Because, clearly, it is the greatest tribulation this world will ever see and experience, proven by what I have underlined below.

Revelation 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

Revelation 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

great
megas
meg'-as
(including the prolonged forms, feminine megale, plural megaloi, etc.; compare also megistoV - megistos 3176, 3187); big (literally or figuratively, in a very wide application):--(+ fear) exceedingly, great(-est), high, large, loud, mighty, + (be) sore (afraid), strong, X to years.

tribulation
thlipsis
thlip'-sis
from qlibw - thlibo 2346; pressure (literally or figuratively):--afflicted(-tion), anguish, burdened, persecution, tribulation, trouble.

Daniel 12:1---and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time---Matthew 24:21--For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.


trouble
tsarah
tsaw-raw'
feminine of 'tsar' (6862); tightness (i.e. figuratively, trouble); transitively, a female rival:--adversary, adversity, affliction, anguish, distress, tribulation, trouble


Well at least we know that 'thlipsis' and 'tsarah' are not meaning the same thing? Right? Of course we don't know that. Of course both words are meaning the same thing. And even though Daniel 12:1 does not mention great, we obviously know it will be great based on what this says, which obviously means, since the beginning of the world to this time, it has no equal, that is can't be surpassed in greatness---And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time

And this obviously presents a major problem if this---Matthew 24:21--For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be---is not the same tribulation meant in Daniel 12:1, and that it precedes the one meant in Daniel 12:1. You obviously don't fully grasp what constitutes an obvious contradiction. You place your doctrinal bias above logic in this case. Your interpretation of Matthew 24:21 and Daniel 12:1 defies logic.

Arguments, such as. If the AOD was fulfilled in the first century involving 70 AD, why don't all interpreters agree with each other as to what it was? If that's not a red flag, I don't know what is. Here we have all these interpreters insisting that the AOD has already been fulfilled, thus no longer a mystery as to what it was if true, then all of these same interpreters not even agreeing with each other as what the AOD was.

Somehow, though, you think my inability to explain the fleeing recorded in Matthew 24 if not meaning in the literal sense, that this trumps all and any of my arguments above and elsewhere that I have argued these things.

Though, you try to, you cannot get around any of these arguments above. You think you get around them, except you don't, the fact to defy logic in order to get around something does not equal having gotten around something. Only in your world it might mean that, not in mine. You defy logic per your interpretation by having something involving local being greater than something involving global. You defy logic by having something involving local having no equal nor can't be surpassed in greatness. That would be like arguing that a local flood can't be equaled nor surpassed in greatness. That not even Noah's flood can surpass it in greatness.

Funny though how your mind works at times, you would never argue that, yet turn right around, per your interpretation of the Discourse, argue that a local event can't be equaled nor surpassed in greatness. Not even by global events. Who reasons in that manner? Where they are being perfectly reasonable by insisting a local event, such as a flood, can't equal nor surpass in greatness a global event, such as Noah's flood. Then insist the exact opposite when it comes to the Discourse per their interpretation of some of it. That a local event can't be equaled nor surpassed in greatness by global events. These problems go away entirely once one admits that Daniel 12:1 and Matthew 24:21 is involving the same era of time. Keeping in mind that Jesus plainly, thus undeniably tells us that great tribulation per Matthew 24:21 can't be equaled nor surpassed in greatness ever, the fact he said this--no, nor ever shall be.

 

[covenantee]

Don't talk to me like this. I would never disagree with Paul.

No offense intended, bro. Thought I'd inject a little humor. We're still almost clones.

So Paul is right whether he's talking about all literal nations, or whether he's talking about all nations of the known world.

And he's confirming the associated prophecy of Jesus in Matthew 24:14.

 

[Davidpt]

"Wars, rumors of wars, and commotions were of a general nature. These things were not signs of the end; to the contrary, they were given to show that the end was NOT yet. None of these things would be the sign which would cause the disciples to flee into the mountains."

Isn't that what you're saying?

It doesn't sound like that to me in Luke 21, though.

Luke 21:9 But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by.
10 Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom:
11 And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven.

He basically places verses 9-10 during an era of time involving verse 11. Then notice this in the next verses.

Luke 21:12 But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake.
13 And it shall turn to you for a testimony.
14 Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer:
15 For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.
16 And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death.
17 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake.
18 But there shall not an hair of your head perish.
19 In your patience possess ye your souls.


Verse 12 says--- But before all these. Before all of what? Maybe before what verses 9-11 is involving? Any reason to think it isn't meaning that? And besides, note where Jesus places --fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven--in verse 11 in Matthew 24.

Matthew 24:29 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:


Obviously, meaning this in Luke 21.

Luke 21:25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.


The same signs and fear sights mentioned in Luke 21:11 and that Jesus places these things after great tribulation in Matthew 24:29.

 

[covenantee]

It doesn't sound like that to me in Luke 21, though.

Luke 21:9 But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by.
10 Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom:
11 And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven.

He basically places verses 9-10 during an era of time involving verse 11. Then notice this in the next verses.

Luke 21:12 But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake.
13 And it shall turn to you for a testimony.
14 Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer:
15 For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.
16 And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death.
17 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake.
18 But there shall not an hair of your head perish.
19 In your patience possess ye your souls.


Verse 12 says--- But before all these. Before all of what? Maybe before what verses 9-11 is involving? Any reason to think it isn't meaning that? And besides, note where Jesus places --fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven--in verse 11 in Matthew 24.

Matthew 24:29 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:


Obviously, meaning this in Luke 21.

Luke 21:25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.


The same signs and fear sights mentioned in Luke 21:11 and that Jesus places these things after great tribulation in Matthew 24:29.

FAMINES, PESTILENCES, EARTHQUAKES

The Bible records that there was famine “throughout all the world. . . in the days of Claudius Caesar” (Acts 11:28). Judea was especially hard hit by famine. “The disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethern which dwelt in Judaea” (verse 29). Paul’s instructions concerning this “collection [of fruit] for the saints” is recorded in First Corinthians 16:1-5; Rom. 15:25-28.

Historians such as Suetonius and others mention famine during those years. Tacitus speaks of a “Failure in the crops, and a famine consequent thereupon.” Eusebius also mentions famines during this time in Home, Judea, and Greece. Yes, there were famines in those years before the fall of Jerusalem.

Along with famines, Jesus mentioned pestilences; that is plagues, the spread of disease, epidemics. Famine and pestilence, of course, go hand in hand. When people do not have proper food or insufficient food, pestilence results. Suetonius wrote of “pestilence” at Home in the days of Nero which was so severe that “within the space of one autumn there died no less than 30,000 persons.” Josephus records that pestilences raged in Babylonia in A.D. 40. Tacitus tells of pestilences in Italy in A. D. 66. Yes, there were pestilences in those years before the destruction of Jerusalem.

During this period, Jesus said there would also be earthquakes in many places. Tacitus mentions earthquakes at Rome. He wrote that “frequent earthquakes occured, by which many houses were thrown down” and that “twelve populous cities of Asia fell in ruins from an earthquake.”

Seneca, writing in the year 58 A. D., said: “How often have cities of Asia and Achaea fallen with one fatal shock! how many cities have been swallowed up in Syria! how many in Macedonia! how often has Cyprus been wasted by this calamity! how often has Paphos become a ruin! News has often been brought us of the demolition of whole cities at once.” He mentions the earthquake at Campania during the reign of Nero. In 60 A. D., Hierapous, Colosse, and Laodicea were overthrown — Laodocia being so self-sufficient that it recovered without the Imperial aid furnished other cities. In 63 A. D., the city of Pompeii was greatly damaged by earthquake. There were earthquakes in Crete, Apamea, Smyrna, Miletus, Chios, Samos, and Judea. Earthquakes in divers places.

Great Prophecies of the Bible
Ralph Woodrow

 

[dad]

You agreed that there will be no more sin when He comes, but disagree that there will be no more death?

No death or sin for the saved. In the 1000 year rule of Christ, apparently not all the people are saved. Some people still die, like the guy who dies at 100 years old. Some people still try to rebel. Etc

That makes no sense. No more sin means no more death. Clearly, you do believe there will be more sin after He comes.

No more death for the saved believers who have new bodies like His. We help Him rule. We are not the people that are ruled over on earth. Yes there will be untold millions of believers who start to believe in that period, of course. Probably most people on earth I would think. I don't even see the rebellion in the end being all that big worldwide. It sounds like some rebels pick a certain 'camp' pf saints and surround it. But regardless, it gets squashed in a New York minute. Then the whole world is burned and made new and the heavens are new as well.

You believe there will be a lot of sin occurring during a little season that you think occurs 1,000 years after He comes.

Probably not as much as you imagine, but it will all be dealt with.

Paul indicated that "the end" includes the end of death (1 Cor 15:26) and that the end comes when Jesus comes (1 Cor 15:22-28).

No


1 Corinthians 15:52
In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed

That is about believers being raised, not about sin on earth vanishing.

The other passage you cited is this


1 Corinthians 15:23
But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

1 Corinthians 15:24
Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.


1 Corinthians 15:25
For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

So He reigns when He comes. It is not until all enemies are put under (at the end of the 1000 yr reign) that we see death also is destroyed. It takes ten centuries of reign before all of the enemies are put down. Most, of course will be destroyed right away. All kings and wicked who are enemies. Yet to get them all it takes awhile. He let's things play out and shows that some people, even in that perfect environment under His rule directly, will still reject Him.

 

[dad]

This proves nothing except that you assume what is described in Revelation 20 chronologically follows what is described in Revelation 19.

Where do you think we should place the 1000 years of His rule? Patmos? Galilee? Caesar? The USA?

But, the book of Revelation is not all chronological.

Yes it is to a large extent, there are a sequence of events that follow each other.

The most obvious proof of that is Revelation 11 and 12. Clearly, the birth and ascension of Christ, referenced in Revelation 12, did not occur after the seventh trumpet, referenced at the end of Revelation 11.

Some passages span times. Chapter 12 also talks about a sign that was seen in heaven. That tells us it is not on earth following some earth time sequence. But things do get down to earth in chapter 12 and are in sequence. Satan is cast down to earth. He then is here only for a limited short exact time.

 

[WPM]

Agree completely.

@Zao is life claims that Jesus didn't answer the question about the temple buildings at all. I see no reason at all to believe that. Especially when Luke 21:20-24 clearly matches the description of what happened in 70 AD when the temple buildings were destroyed. So, I don't understand how he can deny that Luke 21:20-24 is the answer to that question. But, he can't see how any abomination of desolation occurred at that time, so he can't see how Matthew 24:14-22 and Mark 13:14-20 can relate to 70 AD. At least he doesn't deny that Matthew 24:15-22, Mark 13:14-20 and Luke 21:20-24 are parallel accounts like @Davidpt does.

@Davidpt claims that Luke 21:20-24 is not a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20. I invite him to take a close look at how you compared all 3 passages above and then to explain to us how those could possibly not all be talking about the same thing. He also needs to explain exactly how Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20 should be understood if they are meant to be understood spiritually rather than physically. What would it mean for it to be difficult for pregnant women and nursing mothers to flee in a spiritual sense? Why should people pray that they wouldn't have to flee during the winter or on the Sabbath in a spiritual sense? What does Judea represent in a spiritual sense? But, he never addresses these questions.

The question shouldn't be whether Jesus answered the question about the temple buildings at all or whether or not His answer was recorded in the Matthew 24 and Mark 13 accounts. The question instead should be where did He answer that question in each account? And the most obvious text that relates to that question in each account is found in Matthew 24:15-22, Mark 13:14-20 and Luke 21:20-24.

Agree! Well said!

 

[Davidpt]

Agree! Well said!

LOL. Why wouldn't you agree with him? It's not like some of us are surprised by that. After all, your interpretation of some of the Discourse also defies logic.

What matters is, is not your view nor @Spiritual Israelite view of Matthew 24:21. What matters is, what is Jesus' view of it? That's the view we have to agree with and not contradict. Jesus' view is that this great tribulation will be the greatest tribulation that has ever occurred on this planet since the beginning of time. That it can't be equaled nor surpassed in greatness, proved by what He says here---no, nor ever shall be. So let's just pretend that what happened to the unbelieving Jews in the first century is greater in scale than great tribulation recorded in Revelation 7:9, 14. Let's just pretend that something local can surpass something global in greatness. Who cares about defying logic, right?

The idea is to interpret Scripture with Scripture when possible. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to interpret Matthew 24:21 in light of Revelation 7:9, 14.. You, OTOH, don't have Scripture to interpret Scripture with, pertaining to Matthew 24:21. You don't have any Scripture that claims that what happened to unbelieving Jews in the first century is something that can't be equaled nor surpassed in greatness. All you have is that history records that 70 AD indeed occurred. But that doesn't make it the greatest, that it can't be equaled nor surpassed. Revelation 7:9, 14 alone already proves that's a lie.

 

[WPM]

LOL. Why wouldn't you agree with him? It's not like some of us are surprised by that. After all, your interpretation of some of the Discourse also defies logic.

What matters is, is not your view nor @Spiritual Israelite view of Matthew 24:21. What matters is, what is Jesus' view of it? That's the view we have to agree with and not contradict. Jesus' view is that this great tribulation will be the greatest tribulation that has ever occurred on this planet since the beginning of time. That it can't be equaled nor surpassed in greatness, proved by what He says here---no, nor ever shall be. So let's just pretend that what happened to the unbelieving Jews in the first century is greater in scale than great tribulation recorded in Revelation 7:9, 14. Let's just pretend that something local can surpass something global in greatness. Who cares about defying logic, right?

The idea is to interpret Scripture with Scripture when possible. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to interpret Matthew 24:21 in light of Revelation 7:9, 14.. You, OTOH, don't have Scripture to interpret Scripture with, pertaining to Matthew 24:21. You don't have any Scripture that claims that what happened to unbelieving Jews in the first century is something that can't be equaled nor surpassed in greatness. All you have is that history records that 70 AD indeed occurred. But that doesn't make it the greatest, that it can't be equaled nor surpassed. Revelation 7:9, 14 alone already proves that's a lie.

LOL. No one is going to take a lecture from you on anything. Sorry. You twist Scripture after Scripture in post after post and avoid arguments after argument and think we should take your rhetoric seriously. no! You also think you are exempt from the demand of God to fellowship much more as you see the day approaching. No! You are totally unteachable and unaccountable to anyone.