The "watch rapture view"

[Zao is life]

You guys are LIARS. I am not a preterist. Unlike preterists, I don't have the imaginary "old covenant age" ending in 70 AD. I have said many times that the old covenant ended and the new covenant was ushered in when Jesus died on the cross and the veil of the temple being torn in two signified that.

In your imagination you have Jesus calling Jerusalem the holy city when telling His disciples that when they see armies gathering around Jerusalem, then those who are in Judea should flee - because you have that statement in Luke 21:20 connected to Jesus telling His disciples that when they see an abomination of desolation standing in the "holy" place (of a "holy" temple in Jerusalem), they should flee.

But Jesus did not say "When you see armies gathered around the holy city". He called it Jerusalem, and said nothing about the temple in it.

If Luke 21:20 and Matthew 24:15 are connected, then you cannot have Jesus calling the temple in Jerusalem "the holy place" in Matthew 24:15 if you do not also have Him calling Jerusalem "the holy city" in Luke 21:20, because it was the temple in Jerusalem that made that city holy in accordance with the Old Covenant.

But long before it was destroyed, Paul likened Jerusalem to Hagar and said it was in bondage with her children.

You are obsessed with what was holy under the OC in your interpretation of Matthew 24:15-22. @TribulationSigns explains it to you here

 

[Zao is life]

Look in the mirror, hypocrite. You are describing yourself. I tried to get along with you and you proved you have no interest in that, so I give up on that. You prefer the insults, so don't try to kid anyone as if you think otherwise.

Is that the same excuse you use for your insults and rudeness to almost everyone else who disagrees with your eschatology? Or do you have a different excuse for the others? LOL. Do you individualize your excuses for your rudeness, insults, insinuations and misrepresentations of the things all those who disagree with you believe, or do you have boxes of different sorts of excuses which you use for different groups?

So, I see that you disagree with your Premil buddy about Revelation 14:14. It's clearly referring to Christ, but he can't even see that.

No, I agree with him. Unlike you I see the validity in what he is saying, which is why I posted the difference in meaning between the different types of crown used in the Revelation, and why I said that IF Revelation 14:14 is referring to Jesus, it means that He is the only one in the Revelation seen to be wearing both types of crown. You obviously have reading comprehension issues.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Ahem.... let's take a look at one or two verses of what you quoted:

Matthew 24:21-22

• "For then shall be great tribulation, 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."

The word, "then" [tote] or at that time, connects this verse 21 to the preceding verses, which in turn connect to preceding verses of 20-10 and 10 connects it to 5-9. There is no gap, it's ONE PERIOD. Look how the word "then" [tote] or at that time makes all these verses flow seamlessly together as at that time. For example:

Matthew 24:16

• "Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: "

Matthew 24:15

• "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand: )"

Matthew 24:10

• "And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another."

Matthew 24:9

• "Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake."

Clearly, we see an unbroken connection of passages from verse 21 to 9 declaring that "at this time" all these things will happen. To attempt to look at this narrative as diverse eras from verse to verse is to dabble in Eschatological dementia!

God assures us that this [thlipsis] of Matthew 24:21 is speaking about the same time that the things listed in the previous verses were, by saying, then, or "at this time." No novice Greek can make these scriptures "not" say something that they do say.

This is tribulation that is the worst that the world has ever seen, or will see because Satan has gathered his army from the four quarters of the earth. And that if God didn't intervene to shorten the days, there would not be anyone left on earth to be saved. In other words, there would be no election. Look at the verses carefully to note it's not saying there wouldn't be anyone left on earth. God says that if not, there wouldn't be anyone left on earth "to be saved." Remember, God has said that he that shall endure to the end shall be saved. Thus, the days have to be shortened for the sake of the elect IN THE END. Not the sake for the Jews in 70AD over some falling stones so they can flee to the KOA campgrounds in the mountains as long as it was not during the cold winter months or on sabbath days. Absurd!! That wasnt what Christ talked about.

So if these days of these false prophets, deception, and great tribulation were not shortened, then no one would be saved. The Apostasy would so devastate (desolate) the Church that there wouldn't be any election left to be saved if it were allowed to continue. But for sake of the Elect, God assures us those days shall be shortened. How beautiful is God's Word when it is unadulterated by secular stories, ideas and theories. That is how consistent God's Word is when it is allowed to interpret itself.

The third and final verse tribulation or [thlipsis] occurs in Matthew 24 is in verse 29.

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:"

So here again, God doesn't leave His Word up to Josephus to interpret it's time period like you do, He says immediately after the tribulation "of those days," which is a continuing theme. What days are in view? The very same days of tribulation that He has just been talking about from the start of the chapter. Thus no eschatological gymnastics to introduce another tribulation 2000 years before is necessary.

And you've already admitted that this [thlipsis] in versre 29 occurs at the end of the world. If that is the case (and it is) then the tribulation preceding verse 29 is also at the end of the world, but the phrase "immediately after." Now we've just about covered every single verse in the whole chapter up to verse 29, and not one word anywhere from God about a multiple tribulation period. The reason is that this is man's self-serving rationalization in order not to receive what "IS" clearly written there.

There are no other verses in Matthew 24 which use the word tribulation or [thlipsis], and I am sorry, but your preterism-infused amillennial thinking that we are all theologically ignorant so that we cannot see this other alleged tribulation in this chapter, is clearly without any foundation in fact.

Ahem. You speak nonsense. So many words to say nothing. To not acknowledge that Jesus talked at all about the destruction of the temple buildings in the Olivet Discourse despite being asked about the timing of that after telling the disciples the temple buildings would be destroyed is ludicrous. Luke 21:20-24 is clearly a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-22 and it describes exactly what happened in 70 AD. But, I guess that is just a coincidence in your mind? You will never convince me that what you're saying is true because I will never accept the foolish claim that Jesus did not answer the disciples question about when the temple buildings would be destroyed.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

In your imagination you have Jesus calling Jerusalem the holy city when telling His disciples that when they see armies gathering around Jerusalem, then those who are in Judea should flee - because you have that statement in Luke 21:20 connected to Jesus telling His disciples that when they see an abomination of desolation standing in the "holy" place (of a "holy" temple in Jerusalem), they should flee.

But Jesus did not say "When you see armies gathered around the holy city". He called it Jerusalem, and said nothing about the temple in it.

LOL. This is an incredibly weak argument. Luke was paraphrasing what Jesus said for his Gentile audience. Matthew and Mark recorded what Jesus actually said. So, there is no requirement that it should say "the holy city" instead of Jerusalem. You go out of your way to dream up nonsense like this instead of accepting that Jesus was asked about when the temple buildings would be destroyed (after telling the disciples they would be destroyed) and He answered that question.

If Luke 21:20 and Matthew 24:15 are connected, then you cannot have Jesus calling the temple in Jerusalem "the holy place" in Matthew 24:15 if you do not also have Him calling Jerusalem "the holy city" in Luke 21:20, because it was the temple in Jerusalem that made that city holy in accordance with the Old Covenant.

Nice man-made rule you came up with here. I don't need to go by your useless man-made rules.

But long before it was destroyed, Paul likened Jerusalem to Hagar and said it was in bondage with her children.

You are obsessed with what was holy under the OC in your interpretation of Matthew 24:15-22. @TribulationSigns explains it to you here

I don't take TribSigns any more seriously than I take you, so I couldn't care less what he says about this. He's the guy who doesn't acknowledge that Satan is an actual living spirit being. But, you want to trust anything he has to say? The guy spiritualizes almost the entire Bible.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Is that the same excuse you use for your insults and rudeness to almost everyone else who disagrees with your eschatology? Or do you have a different excuse for the others? LOL. Do you individualize your excuses for your rudeness, insults, insinuations and misrepresentations of the things all those who disagree with you believe, or do you have boxes of different sorts of excuses which you use for different groups?

Did you miss where I told you to look in the mirror, hypocrite? I have no reason to listen to you about this when you do the exact same things you are complaining about on a regular basis.

No, I agree with him. Unlike you I see the validity in what he is saying, which is why I posted the difference in meaning between the different types of crown used in the Revelation, and why I said that IF Revelation 14:14 is referring to Jesus, it means that He is the only one in the Revelation seen to be wearing both types of crown. You obviously have reading comprehension issues.

LOL. Tell me what I'm not comprehending about what you said here:

In the Revelation everything that's associated with the color white is pure:

Jesus' head and hair appear white like wool (Rev 1:14).
A white stone with a saint's name written on it (Rev 2:17).
The white raiment of the saints (Rev.3:5 & 18; 6:11; 7:9, 13 & 14).
The white clothing of the 24 elders (Rev 4:4).
The white clothing of angels (Rev 15:6).
The white raiment of the bride of Christ (Rev 19:8).
The Great White Throne (Rev 20:11).
Christ seated on a white cloud (Rev 14:14).

Should I assume you didn't actually mean anything you said here including the last line?

 

[Davy]

Watch for Jesus coming for the rapture.

If that's all you are watching for, then you will be way too late to the party. Party is OVER when the rapture happens. It will be too late to retract any falling away to the false-Messiah that comes first by just waiting for the rapture.

What Jesus pointed for us, His Church, to be watching, should be so obvious that He really had no need to spell it out for the simple, although He still did.

It is the SIGNS of the end leading up to His coming that He gave us to WATCH.

That is specifically... what His Olivet discourse is about, the SIGNS He gave. And those SIGNS are the SEALS of Revelation 6.

So are you SEALED in prep for the end? If you don't know those SIGNS and are not watching for them, then it shows YOU ARE NOT SEALED.

 

[rebuilder 454]

If you were an Amil rather than a Premil it would at least make sense to apply what I brought up per Matthew 13 to be meaning after the millennium. After all, that would not remotely contradict an Amil view. But it does contradict a Premil view since what I brought up per Matthew 13 is clearly involving the end of this present age and is not even remotely meaning a thousand years after Christ initially returned.

LOF and GWTJ are both after the mil.

Mat 13
39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

 

[rebuilder 454]

Watch for Jesus sent by the Father to rapture us up from this earth as something good, the blessed hope, which we are blessed with the redemption of our bodies, and be taken by Jesus to heaven, to forever be with Him.

How to make sure that we are ready..... by being saved in Christ and to love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. And love your neighbor as your self. (Matthew 22:37-39)

They see us as weak and cowardly.
They see themselves as powerful overcomers and so tough as to go through the gt.

....but then there is the bible.
Which has them as foolish and us as wise.

They will get their prophetic wish and deal with the ac

They are NOT IN ANY WAY looking for his coming.
...but in the parable of the virgins, even the foolish had enough discernment to watch for Jesus, and actually looked up to the wise ( us wise ones)
FF to today, we are looked at as scum by postribs.

 

[rebuilder 454]

If that's all you are watching for, then you will be way too late to the party. Party is OVER when the rapture happens. It will be too late to retract any falling away to the false-Messiah that comes first by just waiting for the rapture.

What Jesus pointed for us, His Church, to be watching, should be so obvious that He really had no need to spell it out for the simple, although He still did.

It is the SIGNS of the end leading up to His coming that He gave us to WATCH.

That is specifically... what His Olivet discourse is about, the SIGNS He gave. And those SIGNS are the SEALS of Revelation 6.

So are you SEALED in prep for the end? If you don't know those SIGNS and are not watching for them, then it shows YOU ARE NOT SEALED.

..and there you go!
Celebrating not looking for Jesus?

....well. ok.

 

[Zao is life]

Luke was paraphrasing what Jesus said for his Gentile audience.

You have no evidence that Luke was paraphrasing anything, or that Luke was writing primarily for a Gentile audience. That's just a lame and incredibly weak argument you always use and think is valid because you repeat it so often - like it's some sort of mantra that materializes your imagination.

YOU paraphrase Luke 21:20 in your imagination to have Luke talking about the holy temple in the holy city (that's how you read it) because you have the abomination of desolation in the holy place (Matthew 24;15) linked to what was holy during the days of the Old Covenant.

You have said that Jesus knew that by the time the temple was destroyed it would no longer be the holy place because it ceased being the holy place when the veil in the temple was torn in two, BUT you assert, Jesus used the words "the holy place" because "that's how His audience understood the temple when He spoke".

Well then Jesus would have spoken about armies gathering around the holy city if that were indeed the case - but because that's not what Luke wrote, your next piece of imaginary information that exists in your own imagination, is that Luke was "paraphrasing what Jesus said for Luke's Gentile audience".

You're obsessed with what was holy under the Old Covenant in your interpretation of what Jesus meant when speaking about the abomination of desolation in the holy place in the context of what He was saying about the tribulation of His disciples at the end of the Age which (tribulation of His disciples) will lead to the return of Christ.

Jesus was done with that Old Covenant and its temple after declaring that it was going to be left to the Jews desolate and that not one stone of those magnificent buildings would be left upon another.

He was concerned only with what his disciples were going to experience from that time and forward, and until the end of the Age, and especially at the time of the end of the Age. That's the only reason He also told them that when they see armies gathering around Jerusalem, they should flee.

But you equate Luke 21:20 with a holy city by equating Luke 21:20 with the holy place of Matthew 24:15 which you equate with the Old Covenant temple. And all your denials of this fact won't change the fact.

Matthew and Mark recorded what Jesus actually said. So, there is no requirement that it should say "the holy city" instead of Jerusalem.

Likewise there's no requirement or any logical reason, given the grammar of Matthew 24:9-31, to say that the holy place of Matthew 24:15 refers to a holy temple in Jerusalem.

You go out of your way to dream up nonsense like this

You think it's nonsense only because in your own fallible human imagination you have gone out of your way to dream up nonsense like equating the Jerusalem spoken of in Luke 21:20 with the holy place spoken of in Matthew 24:15.

So it has led you to imagine that the two passages are "parallel passages", while you ignore the context and grammar of Matthew 24:9-31 and completely butcher the passage by cutting verses 15-22 out of their end of the age context and pasting them into the 1st century.

It's a bad butcher job and no intelligent human being buys it.

instead of accepting that Jesus was asked about when the temple buildings would be destroyed (after telling the disciples they would be destroyed) and He answered that question.

.. and you do so instead of accepting that the disciples asked Jesus about the end of the age and of His return and though they also asked Him when the temple would be destroyed, He did not answer that question because Jesus was not interested in talking about that temple anymore. It was as good as destroyed the moment He turned His back on it and began making His way down and into the Kidron Valley and up the Mount of Olives. It was what lay ahead that He was interested in telling His disciples about. Nothing else.

Your arguments show over and over that you are obsessed with what was holy under the Old Covenant when you interpret the things Jesus spoke about on the Mount of Olives.

Jesus did not have to still be interested in talking about what was no longer holy just because you are still interested in it.

Jesus did not have to follow your logical fallacies and your rules about whether He may or may not answer His disciples by speaking to them only about the tribulation and persecution that was to come upon them, and that still is to come upon all those who remain faithful to Him at the end of the age.

He did not have to follow your rules and talk about things He had turned His back on after declaring that it had become desolate even 40 years before it was destroyed - because He had said what He had said. It was left to them desolate. Not one stone would be left upon another. Nothing more to say. He was not going to tell his disciples when it would happen - and He did not tell His disciples when it would happen.

I don't take TribSigns any more seriously than I take you, so I couldn't care less what he says about this.

Your hubris shows yet again every time you make remarks like the above. That's why only your Amil buddies take you seriously - and not even all of them - so I'm sure @TribulationSigns does not regard it as being any skin off his back if you don't take him seriously.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You have no evidence that Luke was paraphrasing anything, or that Luke was writing primarily for a Gentile audience.

How can you be this ignorant? The person Luke was writing to directly, whose name was Theophilus, was Greek and, obviously, a Gentile. He addressed the book of Acts to Theophilus as well.

Luke 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Do you think it would have made sense for Luke to write "let the reader understand" based on a prophecy in Daniel to Theophilus and other Gentiles who would have had no knowledge of any of Daniel's prophecies? Of course not.

That's just a lame and incredibly weak argument

I love how you copy the words I use to describe your arguments. So original. What is lame and incredibly weak is your lack of effort to research who the book of Luke was addressed to. You just make assumptions without even looking into it. You didn't even bother reading the beginning of the book to see that it was address to the Gentile Theophilus.

It's beyond insane to think that Jesus said the following things separately within the Olivet Discourse...

Matthew 24:15 “Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), 16 “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. 18 And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes. 19 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! 20 And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Luke 21:20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

Imagine how confused the disciples would have been if He had said these things separately. You expect me to believe that He said "when you see" something that would result in the desolation of the temple and Jerusalem that those in Judea would need to flee to the mountains and that no one should try to enter the area at that time twice? You expect me to believe that He said "But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days!" twice? You expect me to believe that He talked about great tribulation/distress occurring twice? No way. That's complete nonsense. It's beyond obvious that Luke 21:20-24 is a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-21 and only doctrinal bias can prevent someone from acknowledging that.