The "watch rapture view"

[TribulationSigns]

That guy spiritualizes almost everything.

False. It is God who spiritualizes His Word for His Elect who study to understand it.

Why would you think you can trust anything he says?

I never asked anyone to trust me. I'm simply testifying as one of God's witnesses. You're not called to follow me—you’re called to study for yourself whether what I’m saying aligns with the truth of God’s Word.


Your issue isn’t with me—it’s with what you're hearing. You’d rather cling to your version of history, imagining Jews fleeing their literal houses in 70 AD, than consider the spiritual message being revealed. And yet, you conveniently ignore the meaning of the garments Christ spoke about. Do you seriously believe God is warning about literal clothes in Matthew 24 and Revelation 16? That alone exposes your lack of spiritual discernment.


You want truth? Go back and reread what I posted—this time, with your spiritual eyes open.

And He said no one outside of Judea should enter into it to gather their belongings because by spending time doing that they might get caught up in the coming tribulation when the Roman armies were going to destroy Jerusalem and make it desolate, which they did.

Like I said, you got wrong Judea, wrong Jersualem, wrong housetops, wrong clothing etc. 70AD was not what Christ was talking about.

You are trying to relate unrelated verses. In Luke 17 there is no reference to anyone needing to flee to the mountains. Are you forgetting that Matthew 24:17 was said in relation to the need to flee to the mountains? When Jesus comes, no one will be able to flee to the mountains because of the suddenness of everything that will happen once He comes. That is not the context of Matthew 24:15-17 which is in relation to people needing to flee from the coming tribulation.

I can tell you don’t understand what mountains Christ was referring to—you’re still stuck in the 70 AD narrative, clinging to a fantasy that doesn’t hold up under the light of Scripture.


Christ wasn’t pointing to physical Jerusalem in 70 AD where you believe He instructed the Jews to flee to the mountains to camp there to avoid being killed by the Romans. No, He was warning about His New Testament congregation—the spiritual house of God—where the man of sin would take a seat in the Holy Place, defiling it from within. This isn't about Roman soldiers invading the city. It's about spiritual corruption inside the Church. Selah!


That’s why the Elect are told to flee to the mountains when they "see" the abomination of desolation. It’s not just a warning—it’s a command to separate from the apostate system, from the beast and those who worship it.

So here’s the real question: What are those mountains? Why does Christ tell us to flee there? Go search the Scriptures. The answer is there—if you’re willing to see it with spiritual discernment instead of historical bias.

But, in terms of great tribulation occurring before Christ's future return, why would it be particularly troublesome for pregnant women and nursing mothers in relation to that? It's very easy to see why it would be particularly troublesome for them to flee to the mountains before the destruction of 70 AD, but I don't see how that could relate to tribulation before Christ's return. What is your explanation for that?

Mat 24:19-21
(19) And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
(20) But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
(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.

Do you read carefully and THINK!

"In those days" are part of the Great Tribulation! Not in 70AD, but the rebellion house of God near the end. The 70AD was NOT qualified the worst time ever since the beginning of the world or shall be on Earth. Seriously?! Do you realize what the nursing woman signifies? What about the child that sucks? God is not talking about some helpless Jewish women with a child who wants to escape from Roman soliders.

So we have undeniable proof that the time of the Sabbath flight, the time of the Winter, the time of the women with child, is "IN THOSE DAYS," of the [thlipsis] (translated affliction here), which you should know better in Matthew 24 was at the second advent. You see, as my grandmother often said, "your arms are to short to box with God." You come up with contradiction after contradiction for one reason. What you are saying about 70AD is not true.

Not an unholy Jewish Temple practicing sacrilege in AD 70, but the church. The church is the only physical holy place after the cross that could have abomination stand in it. Those told to flee are the elect. Those on the housetops are the elect. Those in the field (at this time) are the elect. Those with child is a "figure" of the church. You need to go look up in Galatians on how God illustrated in the allegory that in the New Testament era, the woman who has more children is a figure of the New Testament Church! Selah!

Thus God is saying, Woe to the church! Why? Because "she" will be judged of God as the great harlot Babylon that she is. And that is why the elect are commanded to flee to the mountains, that they not be partaker with her (Revelation 18). Again, when we read it in context and comparing scripture with scripture for our interpretation, we have consistency.

Beside, do you even understand what is the sabbath and the winter "in those days" Christ talked about, that they need to pray, humm. Doubtfully as long as you are stuck with your 70AD narrative!

Matthew 24:19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers!

Pregnant women? Nursing mothers? And they’re supposed to somehow pray that their escape doesn’t happen on the Sabbath or in winter—during a Roman military siege in 70 AD—so they can flee on foot to the mountains while pregnant or nursing an infant?


Seriously? That’s your interpretation?


LOL. That doesn’t even pass a basic logic test, let alone spiritual discernment. You’re telling me that in the middle of a brutal Roman assault, with the city surrounded and sealed off, these women are expected to time their escape around the weather and the Sabbath laws?


Come on. Think deeper. Christ wasn’t giving survival tips for a historical event—He was giving spiritual warnings for His people, the Elect, to flee from a corrupt and rebellion house. But instead of seeing the spiritual truth, you're stuck forcing the text into a narrow, outdated historical box.


It makes no sense because your interpretation isn’t rooted in the Spirit—it’s just repeating what’s been handed down without testing it by the full counsel of Scripture. Wake up.

What would Jesus saying "How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers" illustrate in relation to great distress/tribulation before His future second coming?

If you have the wisdom of Christ, then you would understand that the woman He speaks of is the Church, and those who are suckling are the children of the congregation—those still immature in the faith, relying on milk and not yet able to stand in the full truth.

This isn't about pregnant women fleeing Roman soldiers in 70 AD—it’s a prophetic warning about the Great Tribulation, a time of severe testing and judgment before Christ's return. Christ is speaking spiritually, not historically.

Those who remain in apostate churches, nursing on dead traditions and false doctrines, will be in great sorrow and distress when that day comes. That’s why He warns them to flee, to escape the wrath coming upon the harlot system that once claimed His name.

But only those with ears to hear and eyes to see will understand it.

What would Jesus saying "Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath" illustrate in relation to great distress/tribulation before His future second coming, keeping in mind that their "flight" is in relation to fleeing to the mountains? What does His reference to those in Judea fleeing to the mountains metaphorically illustrate in relation to His future second coming?

You don't know? Why don't you study what mountains God talked about here that the Elect need to flee instead of remaining in the rebellion house of God. For what? Think.

 

[Douggg]

He answers multiple questions and was not obligated to answer them in any certain chronological order.

We are obligated to go by the order of the text of the Olivet discourse. Not rearrange the order of the verses because that changes the meaning.

Matthew 24: verses 4-13 (near term)
Matthew 24: verse 14 (long term)
Matthew 24: verses 15-51 (end times)

 

[TribulationSigns]

We are obligated to go by the order of the text of the Olivet discourse. Not rearrange the order of the verses.

Matthew 24: verses 4-13 (near term)

False.

Matthew 24: verse 14 (long term)

False.

Matthew 24: verses 15-51 (end times)

False.

Matthew 24:1-2 refers to the fall of the Old Testament congregation.

Matthew 24:3-51 refers to the fall of the New Testament congregation.

Matthew 24 has nothing to do with the Jews and their nation, Israel, near the end. You are looking at the wrong Israel! Selah!

 

[pandaflower]

Allowed or however we might want to take it to mean, the text says satan entered Judas, thus, in my mind, equals possessed him during the ordeal. After all, how does a spirit being enter someone without it involving possessing them?

Luke 22:3 Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.

John 13:27 And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.

Yes. Remember the young man Jesus freed of his own demons?

That boy didn't allow them in. I think if it were a matter of permission, a possessed person could also choose to evict them.

 

[Davidpt]

That’s why the Elect are told to flee to the mountains when they "see" the abomination of desolation. It’s not just a warning—it’s a command to separate from the apostate system, from the beast and those who worship it.

That is exactly what it is pertaining to. And you would think that at least all Amils would agree with that. I even agree with that and I'm not even an Amil. Imagine that. Amils taking things literally when it's typically Premils doing that, and here I am, a Premil, and I'm not taking these things literally. But only meaning Matthew 24:15-26 and not Luke 21:20-23 as well. As to the latter, I indeed take that in the literal sense, that it was involving the first century leading up to 70 AD.

Christians literally fled to the mountains prior to the city and temple being destroyed. How did they know when to do that and where to go if Luke 21:20-23 had zero to do with them knowing when to and where to? Do you have other Scriptures outside of the Discourse that explain when they were to do that and where they were to head to? If no, you are then being unreasonable if you insist what is recorded in Luke 21:20-23 had zero to do with them knowing 'the when' and 'the where' they were supposed to head. As if it makes sense, the fact leading up to 70 AD and 70 AD itself literally happened, but no one ever told them when to flee or where to flee, they all just figured it out on their own.

Though, you are not even remotely being absurd pertaining to Matthew 24:15-26, you are being absurd pertaining to Luke 21:20-23 if you insist none of that is applicable to what led up to 70 AD and 70 AD itself. Can Luke 21:20-23 and Matthew 24:15-26 involve totally different events, totally different time periods? Of course they can unless one puts God on the same level with humans. IOW, as if God is limited as to what He can or cannot do the same way humans are.

Let's face it though, you are basically like a lot of others around here. You don't want to at least try and meet in the middle somewhere. It's either all your way or no way.

 

[TribulationSigns]

That is exactly what it is pertaining to. And you would think that at least all Amils would agree with that. I even agree with that and I'm not even an Amil. Imagine that. Amils taking things literally when it's typically Premils doing that, and here I am, a Premil, and I'm not taking these things literally. But only meaning Matthew 24:15-26 and not Luke 21:20-23 as well. As to the latter, I indeed take that in the literal sense, that it was involving the first century leading up to 70 AD.

Like I said, all Preterists, Premillennialists, and Amillennialists are wrong when they add the 70AD theory to their doctrine.

Christians literally fled to the mountains prior to the city and temple being destroyed. How did they know when to do that and where to go if Luke 21:20-23 had zero to do with them knowing when to and where to? Do you have other Scriptures outside of the Discourse that explain when they were to do that and where they were to head to? If no, you are then being unreasonable if you insist what is recorded in Luke 21:20-23 had zero to do with them knowing 'the when' and 'the where' they were supposed to head. As if it makes sense, the fact leading up to 70 AD and 70 AD itself literally happened, but no one ever told them when to flee or where to flee, they all just figured it out on their own.

Silly. The desolation had already come upon the Old Testament congregation the moment Christ died upon the Cross. The Pentecost has already come, and the Church has started her great commission long before 70AD. Many Christians are already in other nations.

Though, you are not even remotely being absurd pertaining to Matthew 24:15-26, you are being absurd pertaining to Luke 21:20-23 if you insist none of that is applicable to what led up to 70 AD and 70 AD itself.

Yes, these are NOT RELATED to 70AD. Period!

Can Luke 21:20-23 and Matthew 24:15-26 involve totally different events, totally different time periods? Of course they can unless one puts God on the same level with humans. IOW, as if God is limited as to what He can or cannot do the same way humans are.

Sounds a lot like speculations. Different events? LOL.

Let's face it though, you are basically like a lot of others around here.

Not really.

You don't want to at least try and meet in the middle somewhere.

I don't compromise God's Word for the sake of meeting in the middle with someone else. God forbids.

It's either all your way or no way.

It's God's Way. It's His Word that I testified.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

False. It is God who spiritualizes His Word for His Elect who study to understand it.


I never asked anyone to trust me. I'm simply testifying as one of God's witnesses. You're not called to follow me—you’re called to study for yourself whether what I’m saying aligns with the truth of God’s Word.


Your issue isn’t with me—it’s with what you're hearing. You’d rather cling to your version of history, imagining Jews fleeing their literal houses in 70 AD, than consider the spiritual message being revealed. And yet, you conveniently ignore the meaning of the garments Christ spoke about. Do you seriously believe God is warning about literal clothes in Matthew 24 and Revelation 16? That alone exposes your lack of spiritual discernment.


You want truth? Go back and reread what I posted—this time, with your spiritual eyes open.




Like I said, you got wrong Judea, wrong Jersualem, wrong housetops, wrong clothing etc. 70AD was not what Christ was talking about.


I can tell you don’t understand what mountains Christ was referring to—you’re still stuck in the 70 AD narrative, clinging to a fantasy that doesn’t hold up under the light of Scripture.


Christ wasn’t pointing to physical Jerusalem in 70 AD where you believe He instructed the Jews to flee to the mountains to camp there to avoid being killed by the Romans. No, He was warning about His New Testament congregation—the spiritual house of God—where the man of sin would take a seat in the Holy Place, defiling it from within. This isn't about Roman soldiers invading the city. It's about spiritual corruption inside the Church. Selah!


That’s why the Elect are told to flee to the mountains when they "see" the abomination of desolation. It’s not just a warning—it’s a command to separate from the apostate system, from the beast and those who worship it.

So here’s the real question: What are those mountains? Why does Christ tell us to flee there? Go search the Scriptures. The answer is there—if you’re willing to see it with spiritual discernment instead of historical bias.


Mat 24:19-21
(19) And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
(20) But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
(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.

Do you read carefully and THINK!

"In those days" are part of the Great Tribulation! Not in 70AD, but the rebellion house of God near the end. The 70AD was NOT qualified the worst time ever since the beginning of the world or shall be on Earth. Seriously?! Do you realize what the nursing woman signifies? What about the child that sucks? God is not talking about some helpless Jewish women with a child who wants to escape from Roman soliders.

So we have undeniable proof that the time of the Sabbath flight, the time of the Winter, the time of the women with child, is "IN THOSE DAYS," of the [thlipsis] (translated affliction here), which you should know better in Matthew 24 was at the second advent. You see, as my grandmother often said, "your arms are to short to box with God." You come up with contradiction after contradiction for one reason. What you are saying about 70AD is not true.

Not an unholy Jewish Temple practicing sacrilege in AD 70, but the church. The church is the only physical holy place after the cross that could have abomination stand in it. Those told to flee are the elect. Those on the housetops are the elect. Those in the field (at this time) are the elect. Those with child is a "figure" of the church. You need to go look up in Galatians on how God illustrated in the allegory that in the New Testament era, the woman who has more children is a figure of the New Testament Church! Selah!

Thus God is saying, Woe to the church! Why? Because "she" will be judged of God as the great harlot Babylon that she is. And that is why the elect are commanded to flee to the mountains, that they not be partaker with her (Revelation 18). Again, when we read it in context and comparing scripture with scripture for our interpretation, we have consistency.

Beside, do you even understand what is the sabbath and the winter "in those days" Christ talked about, that they need to pray, humm. Doubtfully as long as you are stuck with your 70AD narrative!


Pregnant women? Nursing mothers? And they’re supposed to somehow pray that their escape doesn’t happen on the Sabbath or in winter—during a Roman military siege in 70 AD—so they can flee on foot to the mountains while pregnant or nursing an infant?


Seriously? That’s your interpretation?


LOL. That doesn’t even pass a basic logic test, let alone spiritual discernment. You’re telling me that in the middle of a brutal Roman assault, with the city surrounded and sealed off, these women are expected to time their escape around the weather and the Sabbath laws?


Come on. Think deeper. Christ wasn’t giving survival tips for a historical event—He was giving spiritual warnings for His people, the Elect, to flee from a corrupt and rebellion house. But instead of seeing the spiritual truth, you're stuck forcing the text into a narrow, outdated historical box.


It makes no sense because your interpretation isn’t rooted in the Spirit—it’s just repeating what’s been handed down without testing it by the full counsel of Scripture. Wake up.




If you have the wisdom of Christ, then you would understand that the woman He speaks of is the Church, and those who are suckling are the children of the congregation—those still immature in the faith, relying on milk and not yet able to stand in the full truth.

This isn't about pregnant women fleeing Roman soldiers in 70 AD—it’s a prophetic warning about the Great Tribulation, a time of severe testing and judgment before Christ's return. Christ is speaking spiritually, not historically.

Those who remain in apostate churches, nursing on dead traditions and false doctrines, will be in great sorrow and distress when that day comes. That’s why He warns them to flee, to escape the wrath coming upon the harlot system that once claimed His name.

But only those with ears to hear and eyes to see will understand it.




You don't know? Why don't you study what mountains God talked about here that the Elect need to flee instead of remaining in the rebellion house of God. For what? Think.

LOL. What a bunch of gibberish. LOL at ridiculous nonsense like "apostate churches, nursing on dead traditions and false doctrines". It's a minor miracle that you are an Amil because you share something in common with Premils in terms of often not being able to discern what is literal and what is spiritual or figurative in scripture.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That is exactly what it is pertaining to. And you would think that at least all Amils would agree with that. I even agree with that and I'm not even an Amil. Imagine that. Amils taking things literally when it's typically Premils doing that, and here I am, a Premil, and I'm not taking these things literally.

Amil is primarily based on clear, straightforward passages so this idea that it is Amils who don't take things literally while Premils do is false. The difference between Amils (other than Amils like TribulationSigns) and Premils is that Amils are much better at discerning whether a given text is literal or not. You often take literal text figuratively and figurative text literally. There is no basis whatsoever for not taking passages like Matthew 24:15-22 and 2 Peter 3:10-12 literally, but you don't because of your doctrinal bias. You can't discern that those passages should be taken literally while you take a passage like Revelation 20 in the most highly symbolic book in the Bible literally.

But only meaning Matthew 24:15-26 and not Luke 21:20-23 as well. As to the latter, I indeed take that in the literal sense, that it was involving the first century leading up to 70 AD.

Christians literally fled to the mountains prior to the city and temple being destroyed. How did they know when to do that and where to go if Luke 21:20-23 had zero to do with them knowing when to and where to? Do you have other Scriptures outside of the Discourse that explain when they were to do that and where they were to head to? If no, you are then being unreasonable if you insist what is recorded in Luke 21:20-23 had zero to do with them knowing 'the when' and 'the where' they were supposed to head. As if it makes sense, the fact leading up to 70 AD and 70 AD itself literally happened, but no one ever told them when to flee or where to flee, they all just figured it out on their own.

Though, you are not even remotely being absurd pertaining to Matthew 24:15-26, you are being absurd pertaining to Luke 21:20-23 if you insist none of that is applicable to what led up to 70 AD and 70 AD itself. Can Luke 21:20-23 and Matthew 24:15-26 involve totally different events, totally different time periods? Of course they can unless one puts God on the same level with humans. IOW, as if God is limited as to what He can or cannot do the same way humans are.

Let's face it though, you are basically like a lot of others around here. You don't want to at least try and meet in the middle somewhere. It's either all your way or no way.

Tell me something. If Matthew 24:15-22 and Luke 21:20-24 are not parallel passages, then why did only Matthew and Mark record what Jesus said, as written in Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20 and not Luke? And why did only Luke record what Jesus said, as written in Luke 21:20-24, but not Matthew and Mark?

In other words, why would Matthew and Mark only have recorded Jesus's answer to the disciples' second question, as you believe? And why would Luke be the only one to record Jesus's answer to the disciples' first question, as you believe?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

We are obligated to go by the order of the text of the Olivet discourse. Not rearrange the order of the verses.

No, we are not. That's a man-made rule you came up with. I'm not obligated to follow your man-made rules. Jesus could answer their questions in whatever order He wanted to. He was not obligated to first answer their first question.

I don't need to have someone who thinks that Matthew and Luke had things in the same order up until Matthew 24:13 and Luke 21:19, respectively and then suddenly had Jesus talking about completely different things after that. We should expect that each account of the Olivet Discourse had things in the same order chronologically which would mean that Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20 have to be parallel passages to Luke 21:20-24. But, you deny that which means you don't have each account being in the same order.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I've said nothing about wars et al. Stick to the subject, eh.

I did stick to the subject. You were talking about what you thought was amusing about how people interpret Matthew 24:14 and I talked about how amusing it is how you interpret related verses that come before that one that help establish the context of that verse.

Paul used both of Jesus' expressions, "all the world" and "all nations", verbatim, and expressed evidence of the gospel having reached them in the present tense, confirming its fulfillment.

Do you agree that Paul is referring to the same "all the world" and "all nations" that Jesus is referring to?

Are you not reading everything that I'm saying? I clearly said that I don't believe they were talking in the same context. I clearly said that I believe Paul was talking about the known world at the time, which was the world that was controlled by the Roman empire, which was not the entire world. And I said that I believe Jesus was talking about literally the entire world rather than just the known world within the Roman empire at that time.

 

[David in NJ]

LOL. What a bunch of gibberish. LOL at ridiculous nonsense like "apostate churches, nursing on dead traditions and false doctrines". It's a minor miracle that you are an Amil because you share something in common with Premils in terms of often not being able to discern what is literal and what is spiritual or figurative in scripture.

1,000 literal years

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

How do you know that?

Because it says the Messiah would be cut off AFTER the end of the 69th week. What comes after the 69th week? The 70th week.

Also, the six things listed in Daniel 9:24 could only be fulfilled by Christ and His sacrifice. There was no other way to make reconciliation for sins except for Christ to shed His blood, for example.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

1,000 literal years

No, it's not a literal 1,000 years. Thanks for making my point for me. Premils often are not able to discern what is literal and what is not when it comes to Bible prophecy.

The word "thousand" is used figuratively rather than literally several times in scripture, including in verses like these:

Deuteronomy 7:9 Know therefore that the Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments.

Psalm 50:9 I have no need of a bull from your stall or of goats from your pens, 10 for every animal of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Very good. Glad I helped, to the glory of the Lord. This is why I have said that my post is here as a public record for anyone other than the person I debate with. You also did a good job with the rest of your post about the housetop. I will elaborate more about the housetops here to clarify something that will refute his nonsense about some Judean literal houses of fleeing Jews in 70AD. So much for a grain of salt, eh, @Spiritual Israelite. :-)

Congratulations on leading one person astray with your hyper-spiritualized version of the Olivet Discourse. As if that means anything to me? Those with discernment know that your posts relating to the Olivet Discourse are complete nonsense.

 

[David in NJ]

No, it's not a literal 1,000 years. Thanks for making my point for me. Premils often are not able to discern what is literal and what is not when it comes to Bible prophecy.

The word "thousand" is used figuratively rather than literally several times in scripture, including in verses like these:

Deuteronomy 7:9 Know therefore that the Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments.

Psalm 50:9 I have no need of a bull from your stall or of goats from your pens, 10 for every animal of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills.

literal 1,000 years = exactly as Spoken by the LORD

 

[Douggg]

No, we are not. That's a man-made rule you came up with. I'm not obligated to follow your man-made rules. Jesus could answer their questions in whatever order He wanted to. He was not obligated to first answer their first question.

Jesus did respond to their questions. And what Jesus said is recorded in the text in the order as Jesus said. When you rearrange the verses, you are changing what Jesus said.

Also the abomination of desolation of Matthew 24:15 spoken of by Daniel the prophet is time of the end, not 70ad.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

literal 1,000 years = exactly as Spoken by the LORD

Nice job of not addressing my point. That's your opinion, but you can't back it up with scripture. Do me a favor and read the first 2 posts in this thread and tell me what you think about what I said here: Unlike Amillennialism, Premillennialism is based on assumptions and speculation rather than on any clear, straightforward scriptures

Premils like to think that they are the ones who take scripture literally while Amils don't, but it is actually Amil that is based on clear, straightforward scriptures, not Premil.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Jesus did respond to their questions. And what Jesus said is recorded in the text as Jesus said. When you rearrange the verses, you are changing what Jesus said.

I'm not rearranging the verses. If anyone is doing that, it's you because you have the verses in each account being in the same order chronologically up to a point, but then, somehow, that's no longer the case when it gets to Matthew 24:14, Mark 13:14 and Luke 21:20, respectively. For no good reason, you have Jesus jumping far ahead in time from the previous verse in Matthew 24:14 and Mark 13:14, but not in Luke 21:20.

Also the abomination of desolation of Matthew 24:15 spoken of by Daniel the prophet is time of the end, not 70ad.

You assume the time of the end is a short time before Jesus returns at the end of the age, but phrases like "the last days" and "the last time" in the NT refer to the entire NT time period, so your understanding of "the time of the end" is flawed. Also, it's a reference to what is described in Daniel 9:26-27 which is clearly in relation to what happened in 70 AD when the city and the sanctuary in Jerusalem were destroyed.

 

[Douggg]

For no good reason, you have Jesus jumping far ahead in time from the previous verse in Matthew 24:14 and Mark 13:14, but not in Luke 21:20.

No, I show Luke 21:24 as long term, not Luke 21:20.

24 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.

The times of the Gentiles is long term.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No, I show Luke 21:24 as long term, not Luke 21:20.

24 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.

The time of the Gentiles is long term.

You missed the point. I'm saying there is no basis for seeing Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 as being parallel up to Matthew 24:13, Mark 13:13 and Luke 21:19, respectively, but then, somehow, you have Jesus jumping far ahead in time in the next verses of Matthew 24:14 and Mark 13:14, but not in Luke 21:20.

Why do you think that only Matthew and Mark recorded what Jesus said, as is written in Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20, but not Luke? Why do you think that only Luke recorded what is written in Luke 21:20-24, but not Matthew and Mark? I see no basis for believing that. It's clear to me that Matthew 24:15-22, Mark 13:14-20 and Luke 21:20-24a are parallel passages. The second half of Luke 21:24 refers to times that have followed the fulfillment of Matthew 24:15-22, Mark 13:14-20 and Luke 21:20-24a in 70 AD that are called "the times of the Gentiles".