The "watch rapture view"

[TribulationSigns]

You really need to ask God for wisdom (James 1:5-7). Seriously. You are continually deluding yourself and missing what scripture is saying.

Very unlikely. But like I said before, The Lord judges and I am comfortable with it.

Let's start at the beginning of Revelation 2 and see if everything Jesus was saying there applies to the universal church or if some of what He said applied specifically to those in the church in first century Ephesus.

You still don’t get it, babe in Christ. So let me make this as clear as Scripture does—and I won’t keep repeating myself:


The context of Matthew 24, apart from verses 1–2 which reference the fall of the Old Testament congregation, is a prophetic message from Christ concerning future events affecting His New Testament Church—not merely events of the first century. The rest of the chapter deals with the spiritual trials, deceptions, and tribulations that the Church will endure leading up to His return.


You keep acting like Jesus’ words were only for the first century people standing in front of Him, but that’s shortsighted. When Christ spoke to the disciples, He was speaking through them to the Church—the body of believers, both then and now.

When Jesus said, “In this world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world” (John 16:33), He wasn’t only talking to Peter, James, and John. He was addressing all believers, the entire Church, across every generation.

Likewise, when Paul wrote to the Corinthians and said, “To the church of God which is at Corinth…” (1 Corinthians 1:2), or to the Romans, “To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people…” (Romans 1:7), he was speaking to the Church.


And when Christ, through John, addressed the churches in Revelation—Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea—His message wasn’t limited to local assemblies in Asia Minor. He ended every message with, “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches” (Revelation 2–3). That’s a universal call to the entire Church age, whether you like it or not!

So stop acting like the words of Christ and the apostles are locked in the past. They were written for our instruction—“upon whom the ends of the world are come” (1 Corinthians 10:11).


It’s time to grow up, spiritually. Read with understanding—and rightly divide the Word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15), babe.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You still don’t get it, babe in Christ. So let me make this as clear as Scripture does—and I won’t keep repeating myself:

Look here, newborn in Christ. You have nothing to teach me. No one who can't even discern that Satan is a real, living being (a fallen angel) has anything to teach me. You're not even addressing anything I said in my post. Are you afraid to do so? I showed the things that clearly related to those churches at that time and your response is silence. As if nothing Jesus said in Revelation 2 and 3 applied specifically to anything that was happening in those churches at that time. What a joke!

Are you not willing to admit that you were wrong in applying 1 Corinthians 2:14 to me, newborn in Christ? How about you humble yourself for once and acknowledge that the natural man represents unsaved people without the Holy Spirit. Can you bring yourself to do that or are you just too prideful to admit that you misapplied that verse to me?

The context of Matthew 24, apart from verses 1–2 which reference the fall of the Old Testament congregation, is a prophetic message from Christ concerning future events affecting His New Testament Church—not merely events of the first century. The rest of the chapter deals with the spiritual trials, deceptions, and tribulations that the Church will endure leading up to His return.


You keep acting like Jesus’ words were only for the first century people standing in front of Him, but that’s shortsighted. When Christ spoke to the disciples, He was speaking through them to the Church—the body of believers, both then and now.

Blah blah blah. You think I'm going to agree with you now after disagreeing with you the first hundred times you said this? Think again. Give it up, newborn in Christ.

When Jesus said, “In this world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world” (John 16:33), He wasn’t only talking to Peter, James, and John. He was addressing all believers, the entire Church, across every generation.

Likewise, when Paul wrote to the Corinthians and said, “To the church of God which is at Corinth…” (1 Corinthians 1:2), or to the Romans, “To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people…” (Romans 1:7), he was speaking to the Church.


And when Christ, through John, addressed the churches in Revelation—Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea—His message wasn’t limited to local assemblies in Asia Minor. He ended every message with, “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches” (Revelation 2–3). That’s a universal call to the entire Church age, whether you like it or not!

So stop acting like the words of Christ and the apostles are locked in the past. They were written for our instruction—“upon whom the ends of the world are come” (1 Corinthians 10:11).

Dude, nowhere did I say that nothing written in Revelation 2 and 3 applies to us still today. Nowhere! But, there were a few things Jesus mentioned that were in direct relation to things that were happening in those churches. That is undeniable. Does that mean we can't learn from those things? No, of course not. But, to act like He didn't say anything that related directly to things they were going through at that time is just ludicrous.

It’s time to grow up, spiritually. Read with understanding—and rightly divide the Word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15), babe.

Take your own advice, newborn. Stop acting as if spiritual discernment is the act of spiritualizing as much scripture as possible. No, it's being able to discern literal text from figurative text or physical text from spiritual text. You need to grow up and start learning how to do that instead of misapplying verses like 1 Corinthians 2:14 to saved people and other ways you misapply scripture because of your lack of spiritual discernment.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Look here, newborn in Christ. You have nothing to teach me. No one who can't even discern that Satan is a real, living being (a fallen angel) has anything to teach me.

True because you have an unteachable spirit.

I showed the things that clearly related to those churches at that time and your response is silence. As if nothing Jesus said in Revelation 2 and 3 applied specifically to anything that was happening in those churches at that time. What a joke!

Sigh… Even the churches that were found faithful—like Philadelphia and Smyrna—which the Lord did not threaten with removal, no longer exist today as congregations in those cities. They’re gone.

And what about the other five? The ones Christ warned—Ephesus, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, and Laodicea? Did they repent and endure? No. They vanished. What remains are ruins and archaeological sites—not living congregations.

So spare me the claim that these were just letters to "local churches" that have no lasting relevance. If that were the case, their judgment and disappearance would have been the end of it. But Christ’s words carried eternal spiritual warnings for all churches throughout history. That’s why He said, “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches”—plural, not just to one, and not just for the first century (Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, etc.). Get it, babe?

The historical churches are gone, but the spiritual conditions Christ addressed are still alive today in many congregations. That’s the real relevance—not the ruins in Turkey, but the warnings and promises that still speak to the Church today.

Are you not willing to admit that you were wrong in applying 1 Corinthians 2:14 to me, newborn in Christ?

Yawning...

Dude, nowhere did I say that nothing written in Revelation 2 and 3 applies to us still today. Nowhere! But, there were a few things Jesus mentioned that were in direct relation to things that were happening in those churches.

Show me in Scripture where it said what actually happened to these seven "literal churches" in Turkey AFTER God warned to them.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

True because you have an unteachable spirit.

That is not true. I just can't be taught by someone lacking in spiritual discernment like you.

Sigh… Even the churches that were found faithful—like Philadelphia and Smyrna—which the Lord did not threaten with removal, no longer exist today as congregations in those cities. They’re gone.

And what about the other five? The ones Christ warned—Ephesus, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, and Laodicea? Did they repent and endure? No. They vanished. What remains are ruins and archaeological sites—not living congregations.

So spare me the claim that these were just letters to "local churches" that have no lasting relevance.

I made no such claim, liar! You obviously didn't read anything I said carefully at all.

If that were the case, their judgment and disappearance would have been the end of it. But Christ’s words carried eternal spiritual warnings for all churches throughout history.

I agree with that and didn't say otherwise! This proves that you were lazy and made no effort to actually read and understand what I said.

That’s why He said, “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches”—plural, not just to one, and not just for the first century (Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, etc.). Get it, babe?

I said the same thing, newborn! Go back and read what I actually said instead of just relying on your assumptions of whatever you thought I would say.

Yawning....

So, all you can do in response to falsely applying 1 Corinthians 2:14 to me is yawn? Are you not willing to admit that you were wrong in applying 1 Corinthians 2:14 to me, newborn in Christ? Talk about having an unteachable spirit.

The historical churches are gone, but the spiritual conditions Christ addressed are still alive today in many congregations.

That is correct. I never said otherwise! Hello? Wake up, newborn.

 

[Douggg]

You clearly have no understanding of this passage...

Luke 19:41 Now as He drew near, He saw the city and wept over it, 42 saying, “If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. 43 For days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and close you in on every side, 44 and level you, and your children within you, to the ground; and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not know the time of your visitation.”

The Romans did not destroy the city and temple because they (the Romans) were angry because the Jews rejection of Jesus.

The Romans destroyed the city and temple because the Jews rebelled against Roman rule and occupation. There were 3 major revolts by Jews against Roman rule and occupation between 66ad and 136ad.

Look up "the Jewish Roman wars" on Google.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The Romans did not destroy the city and temple because they (the Romans) were angry because the Jews rejection of Jesus.

The Romans destroyed the city and temple because the Jews rebelled against Roman rule and occupation. There were 3 major revolts by Jews against Roman rule and occupation between 66ad and 136ad.

Look up "the Jewish Roman wars" on Google.

Doug, I'm backing up my claim with scripture and you want me to look something up on Google instead. Why did you not address the scriptures I used to back up my claim?

How do you interpret these passages:

Luke 19:41 Now as He drew near, He saw the city and wept over it, 42 saying, “If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. 43 For days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and close you in on every side, 44 and level you, and your children within you, to the ground; and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not know the time of your visitation.”

Matthew 22:1 And Jesus answered and spoke to them again by parables and said: 2 “The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, 3 and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come. 4 Again, he sent out other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding.” ’ 5 But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. 6 And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them. 7 But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.

 

[Douggg]

Doug, I'm backing up my claim with scripture and you want me to look something up on Google instead. Why did you not address the scriptures I used to back up my claim?

You are backing up your claim with your interpretation of scripture.

I am backing up my position with my interpretation of scripture and historical fact. Google "the Jewish Roman wars" for historical fact.

Why can't you accept historical fact that the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the city because of Jewish revolts against Roman rule and occupancy ?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You are backing up your claim with your interpretation of scripture.

If you disagree with my interpretation of those scriptures, then how about you share your interpretations of them to show how you think I'm misinterpreting them?

I am backing up my position with my interpretation of scripture and historical fact. Google "the Jewish Roman wars" for historical fact.

Why can't you accept historical fact that the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the city because of Jewish revolts against Roman rule and occupancy ?

Douggg, you are so clearly trying to do anything you can to avoid telling me how you interpret Luke 19:41-44 and Matthew 22:1-7. Why are you trying to avoid those scriptures? They clearly indicate that the reason Jerusalem was destroyed is because of the Jews rejecting Christ (not all, but most). You know that God can use anyone to fulfill His will, right? Just read Revelation 17:16-17 where it talks about Him using the ten horns of the beast to fulfill His will. But, if you disagree that Jerusalem was destroyed because of the unbelief of the Jews, then show me how these passages should be interpreted.

Luke 19:41 Now as He drew near, He saw the city and wept over it, 42 saying, “If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. 43 For days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and close you in on every side, 44 and level you, and your children within you, to the ground; and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not know the time of your visitation.”

Matthew 22:1 And Jesus answered and spoke to them again by parables and said: 2 “The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, 3 and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come. 4 Again, he sent out other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding.” ’ 5 But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. 6 And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them. 7 But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.

 

[Zao is life]

The reason that Luke didn't reference Daniel's prophecy is also obvious.

It's not obvious. It's your invention. LOL. As though Luke wrote or indicated that he did not mention any abomination of desolation because that sort of language is "a Jewish thing" .

Please. Give me strength. Your Amil sure has you inventing a lot of motives for the authors of scripture using or not using certain phrases and then expects others to believe your complete inventions because you believe them.

It's because He was not writing to a Jewish audience like Matthew and Mark. His Gentile audience was not familiar with Daniel's prophecy, so it would have made no sense for him to say "let the reader understand" the reference to Daniel's prophecy. Instead, he spelled out what it was about. It was about Jerusalem being destroyed after first being surrounded by armies. Just like what happened in 70 AD.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It's not obvious. It's your invention. LOL.

LOL at you not being able to discern that Luke wrote to a different audience (Gentiles) than Matthew and Mark did which means him telling the readers to understand the prophecy from Daniel would have made no sense.

As though Luke wrote or indicated that he did not mention any abomination of desolation because that sort of language is "a Jewish thing" .

How about you stop your incessant meaningless rhetoric and explain, if Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20 refer to different events than Luke 21:20-24, why Luke did not record that event? And why did Matthew and Mark not record what is written in Luke 21:20-24 if that is a different event than what is described in Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20? How does that make any sense that, if those are two separate events, only one of the events would be recorded in all 3 accounts?

 

[Zao is life]

I have not stopped laughing since the first time you tried to claim that nothing in the Olivet Discourse is about the destruction of the temple buildings. LOL! That will never not be funny. You think Jesus was asked when the temple buildings would be destroyed, but you say He decided to just not answer that question without even telling them that He was not going to answer it. As if that is a convincing argument at all? Excuse me, I can't type anymore because I'm laughing too hard.

It makes no difference to me what you choose to believe. Besides the fact that Jesus often did not answer their questions with direct answers or at times answer their questions at all, I fully understand now why He did not answer their question about the temple,

and I also get why you ignore the word "before" in Luke 21:12 and the word "therefore" in Matthew 24:15 and why your interpretations are based as they are on your ignoring of context, grammar and the meaning of words (it's so that you can force a reference to the destruction of the Temple into what Jesus said to them on the Mount of Olives).

We both believe the Bible but I have chosen not to butcher the text of Matthew 24 like you do by sawing out verses 15-22 from verses 9-14 & 23-31 just so that I can insist Jesus was talking to them about the temple in Jerusalem.

He wasn't even talking about the temple in Luke 21:20-24. He was just telling them that when they see this happening, they should flee the area. He wasn't talking about the temple in Mark 13 either.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It makes no difference to me what you choose to believe.

But, it clearly does. It clearly bothers you greatly that I disagree with you. The tone of your posts shows that.

Besides the fact that Jesus often did not answer their questions with direct answers or at times answer their questions at all, I fully understand now why He did not answer their question about the temple,

He did answer it. Tell me why He would not answer it without even telling them that He didn't want to answer it. Without telling them that, how would they have known He wasn't answering it?

and I also get why you ignore the word "before" in Luke 21:12 and the word "therefore" in Matthew 24:15 and why your interpretations are based as they are on your ignoring of context, grammar and the meaning of words (it's so that you can force a reference to the destruction of the Temple into what Jesus said to them on the Mount of Olives).

You ignore that the Olivet Discourse was spawned by Jesus saying that the temple buildings would be destroyed and you ignore that it makes no sense that He would tell them that would happen, but then not be willing to answer a question about that. I don't ignore the word "therefore" in Matthew 24:15. I have addressed that several times, so I can only assume that you are blatantly lying about that. I have shown other scripture where that same word is used to refer to something that was said before the verses that immediately precede the verse containing that word. Such as Ephesians 4:1 where the word therefore is used, but it refers back to something that Paul said up until Ephesians 3:13 rather than referring back to the immediate preceding verses of Ephesians 3:14-21. But, you just ignore when I tell you these things and claim that I ignore that word instead because you apparently have no conscience about lying.

We both believe the Bible but I have chosen not to butcher the text of Matthew 24 like you do by sawing out verses 15-22 from verses 9-14 & 23-31 just so that I can insist Jesus was talking to them about the temple in Jerusalem.

You can't butcher the text any worse than trying to claim that Jesus didn't even answer their question about the timing of the destruction of the temple buildings. You also need to explain why the text of Luke 21:20-24, if it is not parallel to Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20, is nowhere to be found in Matthew 24 or Mark 13. No one knows about butchering the text more than you do.

He wasn't even talking about the temple in Luke 21:20-24. He was just telling them that when they see this happening, they should flee the area. He wasn't talking about the temple in Mark 13 either.

Yeah, I'm sure when He talked about the destruction and desolation of Jerusalem that the disciples wouldn't have assumed that the destruction and desolation of the entire city would include the destruction and desolation of the temple buildings. Sure.

 

[Zao is life]

LOL at you not being able to discern that Luke wrote to a different audience (Gentiles) than Matthew and Mark did which means him telling the readers to understand the prophecy from Daniel would have made no sense.


How about you stop your incessant meaningless rhetoric and explain, if Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20 refer to different events than Luke 21:20-24, why Luke did not record that event? And why did Matthew and Mark not record what is written in Luke 21:20-24 if that is a different event than what is described in Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20? How does that make any sense that, if those are two separate events, only one of the events would be recorded in all 3 accounts?

How about you get that the conversation has long passed its sell-by date. Honestly, I'm not answering your questions when you're still stuck on being unable to give a viable explanation as to why Luke uses the word before in Luke 21:12 and mentions only Jerusalem in verses 20-24, and like Mark and Matthew, mentions nothing at all about the temple specifically, and why Matthew used the word therefore in Matthew 24:15 in that context that he had Jesus opening with in verse 9.

You're stuck on a clumsy interpretation based on unbalanced views based on ignoring context and the meaning of words and adding a reference to the temple in Jesus' reply that isn't there just because they asked Him when the temple in Jerusalem was going to be destroyed.

Jesus had already said He is the Temple of God. Though you deny it you're a partial Preterist in your theology.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

How about you get that the conversation has long passed its sell-by date. Honestly, I'm not answering your questions when you're still stuck on being unable to give a viable explanation as to why Luke uses the word before in Luke 21:12 and mentions only Jerusalem in verses 20-24, and like Mark and Matthew, mentions nothing at all about the temple specifically, and why Matthew used the word therefore in Matthew 24:15 in that context that he had Jesus opening with in verse 9.

It's not surprising that you would use excuses for not answering my questions instead of admitting that you have no answers to my questions. There is no viable explanation that you can give for why the text of Luke 21:20-24 is missing from both Matthew 24 and Mark 13 if it's referring to a different event than Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20. And you know it. There is no viable explanation you can give for why the text of Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20, if they are describing a different event than Luke 21:20-24, is nowhere to be found in Luke 21. There is no viable explanation for why Jesus would have not answered their question about when the temple buildings would be destroyed. Surely, if He didn't want to answer that question, He would have told them so in order to avoid any confusion so that they would know He was only answering the second question.

You're stuck on a clumsy interpretation based on unbalanced views based on ignoring context and the meaning of words and adding a reference to the temple in Jesus' reply that isn't there just because they asked Him when the temple in Jerusalem was going to be destroyed.

LOL. Okay. I can only laugh when someone denies something as obvious as this. You have chosen to go to an extreme to keep your doctrine afloat by suggesting that Jesus, for no apparent reason at all, decided not to answer the disciples' question about when the temple buildings would be destroyed. You think that He just thought He would tell them about that without being willing to say any more about it for some unknown reason.

Jesus had already said He is the Temple of God. Though you deny it you're a partial Preterist in your theology.

I don't deny that Jesus said He is the temple of God. The church is also described as the temple of God with Jesus as the cornerstone. This proves nothing as it relates to the Olivet Discourse.

 

[Douggg]

Douggg, you are so clearly trying to do anything you can to avoid telling me how you interpret Luke 19:41-44 and Matthew 22:1-7

I already gave my interpretation of Matthew 22:1-7 several posts back.

Luke 19:41-44, Jesus is saying to the Pharisees (of verse 39) that because they didn't acknowledge him (Jesus) as the messiah (who by His power could remove the Romans (their enemies) from their land), that instead they were going to suffer war with the Romans.

Now admit that is what happened historically,the destruction of Jerusalem and the city was due to the Jewish-Roman wars, which the Jews rebelled against Roman rule and occupancy.

 

[Zao is life]

Subject: The end of the age and the return of Christ:

Luke 17:22-26 & 31, 36-37 - on the way to Jerusalem -

"And He said to the disciples, The days will come when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and you shall not see it. And they shall say to you, Lo, here! or, behold, there! Do not go away, nor follow. For as the lightning which lights up, flashing from the one part under heaven, and shines to the other part under heaven, so also shall the Son of man be in His day. But first He must suffer many things and be rejected of this generation.

And as it was in the days of Noah, so it also shall be in the days of the Son of man. Even so it shall be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. In that day he who shall be on the housetop, and his goods in the house, let him not come down to take them away. And likewise, he who is in the field, let him not return to the things behind. Two shall be in the field, one will be taken, and the other left. And they answered and said to Him, Where, Lord? And He said to them, Wherever the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together."

Matthew 24 - on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem -

Matthew 24:14-20 & 26-28:
"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be proclaimed in all the world as a witness to all nations. And then the end shall come. Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoever reads, let him understand). Then let those in Judea flee into the mountains. Let him on the housetop not come down to take anything out of his house; nor let him in the field turn 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:

Therefore if they shall say to you, Behold, He is in the desert! Do not go out. Behold, He is in the secret rooms! Do not believe it. For as the lightning comes out of the east and shines even to the west, so also will be the coming of the Son of man. For wherever the carcass is, there the eagles will be gathered."

Different subject: The desolation of Jerusalem:

Luke 21
20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judæa 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. 22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 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. 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.

Jesus had already said He is the Temple of God - and He was hours away from going through what He went through before dying in agony and the moment He died, the veil in that Jerusalem temple which you are so obsessed with in your interpretation of the Olivet Discourse, was torn in two.

Neither city nor the temple in it were holy to God and an abomination of desolation placed in a holy place requires that place to be holy.

You insist that the temple which Jesus had already pronounced desolation upon, He needed to answer His disciples' question about just because they asked Him. But their question was a burden to Him. They had already pointed out it's magnificent structure after they had heard Him telling the Pharisees it was left to them desolate and He had already once had to repeat Himself.

It was just hours before His suffering when through His death and resurrection He was bringing in a new creation in Himself. The Old Covenant and the temple that represented it that you are so obsessed with died with Him.

What is important to you (or me, or to the apostles, or anyone else) does not have to be important to Him.

Tell me, one day when we all stand before the judgment seat of Christ, will you demand of Him why He did not answer them, because you assert and insist that the question of when that old temple would be destroyed (and what the sign would be that it was about to occur) was still SO important to Jesus that "there is no reason why Jesus would not have replied" (according to you)?

Jesus was warning His disciples to flee when they see armies gather around Jerusalem as well as when we see the AoD appear in the holy place - He was not warning anyone else - and just because He used the examples of pregnant women and nursing mothers as an illustration of the intensity of what those in the city would suffer when armies gather around Jerusalem in AD70, as well as at the end of the age, does not mean that He considered Jerusalem and its temple holy. He already considered the city and its temple profane when He spoke.

It's not surprising that you would use excuses for not answering my questions instead of admitting that you have no answers to my questions.

Bah blah blah. Your words are so devoid of substance. You have provided no viable answers regarding the only meaning of the word therefore in Mat 24:15 nor the fact that it's one of the conjunctive words used in the passage from verse 9 to 31, nor the fact that Mark reads as Matthew does,

nor the fact that on the Mount of Olives Jesus spoke to His disciples only about the persecution and tribulation that they - the living stones of the New Testament Temple in Christ - were going to endure - both leading up to AD70 and the destruction of Jerusalem - and beyond that until the end of the age and time of His return.

IMO your partial-Preterism that shows up in the way you interpret the Olivet Discourse and the AoD in the holy place only betrays a place where your understanding of (or possibly even faith in) the one and only gospel of salvation in Christ is lacking - because YOU consider the temple that He was already done with, to be important enough for Him to have spoken to His disciples about its coming destruction a third time on the same day.

He did not. It's quite obvious that you will not end your obsession with maintaining and ascribing enough importance to something Jesus was already done with, till 70 AD when YOU say the abomination of desolation appeared "in the holy place".

 

[covenantee]

Now admit that is what happened historically,the destruction of Jerusalem and the city was due to the Jewish-Roman wars, which the Jews rebelled against Roman rule and occupancy.

So the destruction was due to the Jewish-Roman wars, not to Messiah's judgment upon apostate Israel?

 

[Douggg]

I'm not sure what Daniel 12:11-12 is about and neither are you.

I don't consider you wicked (verse 10). But verse 10 says the wise shall understand. I have a timeline chart of the 1290 days and 1335th day, show below of the 1290 days and 1335th day. And what takes place in between..

9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.

13 But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Show me in Scripture where it said what actually happened to these seven "literal churches" in Turkey AFTER God warned to them.

Thought so! @Spiritual Israelite has no answer to this.