Let's examine Revelation 20:4 yet again.

[claninja]

Condescending???

Yes.

You just keep repeating your grammatical error by insisting "these things" go beyond the destruction of the Temple

I never stated “these things” in vs 3 refer to anything else beyond the temple destruction, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

Proper Grammar Instruction

"and" is a conjunction​

1. A particle which expresses the relation of connection or addition. It is used to conjoin a word with a word, a clause with a clause, or a sentence with a sentence.

B.) and conjoins Temple destruction = "and" what will be the sign of your coming

Example: Boys ask their Dad:

Dad, you said you are going to tear down the shed in the backyard AND when will you Return home from your assignment overseas?

The disciples asked Two Concerns/Topics/Subjects in one sentence.
English Language = the word "and" conjoins the two separate subject matters into one sentence.
A.) Destruction of Temple
"and"
B.) Your Second Coming​

This has nothing to do with what I said. My argument was that the antecedents of “these things” refers to temple destruction from vs 1-2. The conjunction “and” has nothing to do my argument

 

[David in NJ]

Yes.


I never stated “these things” in vs 3 refer to anything else beyond the temple destruction, so I have no idea what you are talking about.




This has nothing to do with what I said. My argument was that the antecedents of “these things” refers to temple destruction from vs 1-2. The conjunction “and” has nothing to do my argument

OK - what then is the position on Matt 24:1-3

 

[David in NJ]

Doesn't matter if you believe it is separate. That's not the point that I am making. @Davidpt seemed to argue that vs 1-3, in regards to the temple destruction, are completely unrelated or have nothing to do with the olivet discourse. However, this is untenable from a grammatical and contextual standpoint.

• As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be (temple destruction being the antecedent), and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” And Jesus answered them.......

What the text does NOT say is that Jesus "partially answered them" or that Jesus "only answered the 2nd/3rd question" or that Jesus "did not address their question". It simply states that Jesus answered them. So there is nothing grammatically or contextually that clearly demonstrates that Jesus did not answer their full question.

What is the full question?

 

[claninja]

For example, when Christ threw the buyers and sellers out of the Temple (G2411 - hieron)

John 2:18-21

• "Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
• Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
• Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
• But he spake of the temple of his body."

That word Temple Christ used there is a different word (G3485 - naos), but it is obvious that the words are interchangeable as the Jews spoke of the physical building, declaring it took 46 years to build. And note Christ never told them that He spoke of the Temple of His body, it remained a mystery to them. But it is written by the Apostle John for us, who would come after and receive the deeper Spiritual truth of His words. True to His Words, they did destroy the Temple, and Christ did raise it up in three days, and it was the sign that Jesus had the power/authority to do these things--as they had asked. A sign that many are blinded to from that day to this very day.

The truth is many Jews looked upon the Gentiles as Dogs and Swine and gloried in the fact that they were the chosen seed of Abraham that could never fall from that (in their minds). Even as many in the premillennial/Dispensational church today think their New Testament Church can never fall. But the fact is, they did fall and the congregation today is no better than the congregation was then. Because their eyes were on the temporal rather than the Spiritual, even as the Disciples were admiring the great buildings of the Jewish nation. The Premillennial and Preterism church today feels the very same way about the nation of Israel's position because their hermeneutic is almost identical in its looking at God's Word only literally (John 3:4) and to some degree having great disdain for God authored Spiritual truths. It's simply the other side of that "exact same" coin of methodology. Get this... the stones represent the people, PEOPLE! Not physical stones, because those who fell and those who would be raised up/ built again, when we understand the builder and maker is God. For example:

Matthew 3:9-10

• "And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
• And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire."

Hello, did God talk about physical stones to raise up children? Of course not! God was able of those stones to raise up children unto Abraham, And He Did! Not literal stones, but Spiritual ones. Selah! What stones do you honestly think the Lord really talked about that was falling in Matthew 24:1-3, seriously?

Galatians 3:29

• "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

Nothing coincidental about the language of God raising up stones as the children of Abraham, though it may seem so to many who seem antithetical to the Spirit of truth. Nothing coincidental about stones being the building of the church, or the stones being made of wood hay and stubble, or of gold silver and precious gems "when we gracefully receive God authored Spiritual truths!" The word temple (G2411 - hieron) used by the Disciples doesn't preclude Christ from talking about a spiritual Temple any more than the word temple (G3485 - naos) that the Jews used in saying it took 46 years to build it precluded Christ from speaking of His body and not whatever building the Jews spoke of.

Therefore the Disciples were Jews and they were talking about the physical temple building with physical stones there, but Christ was NOT! Just as the Jews were talking about the physical Temple in the other passage saying it took 46 years to build, but again, Obviously, Christ was not! Selah!

I’m pretty sure Jesus never answered a concrete, visible, historically anchored question with a hidden, unrelated referent WITHOUT the authors of the gospels either signaling it or Jesus later explaining it — and Matthew 24 contains neither. So I disagree with your eisegesis.

Your argument that BECAUSE of the later johannine clarification (John 2:18-21), which is a completely different context and different referent, THEN the temple in Matthew 24 must be a spiritual temple, is not Christlike pedagogy; it is post hoc allegorization.

 

[David in NJ]

I’m pretty sure Jesus never answered a concrete, visible, historically anchored question with a hidden, unrelated referent WITHOUT the authors of the gospels either signaling it or Jesus later explaining it — and Matthew 24 contains neither. So I disagree with your eisegesis.

Your argument that BECAUSE of the later johannine clarification (John 2:18-21), which is a completely different context and different referent, THEN the temple in Matthew 24 must be a spiritual temple, is not Christlike pedagogy; it is post hoc allegorization.

what then is the position on Matt 24:1-3 ?

 

[TribulationSigns]

I’m pretty sure Jesus never answered a concrete, visible, historically anchored question with a hidden, unrelated referent WITHOUT the authors of the gospels either signaling it or Jesus later explaining it — and Matthew 24 contains neither. So I disagree with your eisegesis.

Your argument that BECAUSE of the later johannine clarification (John 2:18-21), which is a completely different context and different referent, THEN the temple in Matthew 24 must be a spiritual temple, is not Christlike pedagogy; it is post hoc allegorization.

You are not thinking carefully.

John 2:15-21
(15) And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;
(16) And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.
(17) And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.
(18) Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
(19) Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
(20) Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
(21) But he spake of the temple of his body.

Did you honestly think Jesus verbally clarified to the Jews that He meant the physical building standing before them? He did not. The Jews misunderstood Him, just as they repeatedly misunderstood His spiritual words.

John, however, wrote after receiving the Holy Spirit, makes the meaning unmistakably clear: Jesus was not speaking of a physical structure at all. He was speaking of His Congregation as His Temple.

That Temple fell when the kingdom representative was taken from the Jews and in three days for their rejection of the Messiah the Prince, and the kingdom representative was given to other in three days. That was the sign given to the Jews. The Jews weren't told to watch for future destruction of stone buildings in the future at all! The error comes from reading Christ’s words carnally instead of spiritually, exactly as the Jews did in the passage itself.

The Scripture interprets itself—and it already tells you what the Temple is.

 

[claninja]

OK - what then is the position on Matt 24:1-3

Orignally, @Davidpt disagreed that vs 1-2 had anything to do with the Olivet discourse. I disagreed with that because grammatically, the antecedents to “all these things” in vs 2 is the temple buildings, and the antecedent to “all these thing” in vs 3 is the destruction of the temple.

What is the full question?

The full question is “when will these things happen and what is the sign of your coming at the end of the age”.

Grammatically, the antecedent to “these things” refers to temple destruction, so when Jesus “answered” them, his answer at least in part addresses the temple destruction.

 

[David in NJ]

Orignally, @Davidpt disagreed that vs 1-2 had anything to do with the Olivet discourse. I disagreed with that because grammatically, the antecedents to “all these things” in vs 2 is the temple buildings, and the antecedent to “all these thing” in vs 3 is the destruction of the temple.



The full question is “when will these things happen and what is the sign of your coming at the end of the age”.

Grammatically, the antecedent to “these things” refers to temple destruction, so when Jesus “answered” them, his answer at least in part addresses the temple destruction.

Which part of Jesus answer do you see where He addresses the temple destruction ?

 

[TribulationSigns]

Orignally, @Davidpt disagreed that vs 1-2 had anything to do with the Olivet discourse. I disagreed with that because grammatically, the antecedents to “all these things” in vs 2 is the temple buildings, and the antecedent to “all these thing” in vs 3 is the destruction of the temple.



The full question is “when will these things happen and what is the sign of your coming at the end of the age”.

Grammatically, the antecedent to “these things” refers to temple destruction, so when Jesus “answered” them, his answer at least in part addresses the temple destruction.

Wrongo. Read the verses carefully:

John 2:18-21
(18) Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
(19) Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
(20) Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
(21) But he spake of the temple of his body.

Again, the "SIGN" (according to God's in-the-flesh Word) was that they would Destroy that Temple, and in three days Christ would Raise it up. Not after 37 years. And they "did" destroy that Temple, and in three days He did raise it up, which means the Sign was Completed/Fulfilled! At least, as far as the Word of God goes. What further sign did God's Word call for that I haven't read? Why do you think some Israel looks for another fulfillment of the coming Messiah? Because they don't recognize Jesus as the completion/fulfillment of that Prophesy. Why do you think some Christians, especially Premillennialists, still look for Elijah to come back before the coming of Christ? Because they don't recognize John as the completion/fulfillment of that Prophesy. They "CLAIM" he only part fulfilled it. Exact same error! Why do many Christians look for a future Restoration of National Israel? Exact same error. Same errors, different names.

The Physical Holy Temple was in AD 70 beside-the-point, irrelevant, unimportant, inconsequential, immaterial to prophesy! Another Holy Temple could be built in Israel tomorrow and it would not illustrate a thing, except that Israel is like every other nation, in need of a savior. Buildings and cities rise and fall and don't prove or disprove anything. In God's economy it is not "really" about physical Babylon, Euphrates river, meat and drink, the placement of 12 stones or geographical locations in the Middle East, whether 70AD, 2026AD, etc. Period! It is not even about physical lineage, respect of persons, mountains, etc., but in the spiritual realities that all these things represented. Things fulfilled that we cannot go back to. That would be like observing the Old Testament Feast of Weeks again today, when it was already fulfilled or completed in Christ.

Did not Israel use the similar "Historical-Grammatical" methodology, and were thus reading the Bible and looking for a Physical King to come and rule physically from the Physical city Jerusalem like the Premillennialists thought, or free them Physically from bondage of the Physical Roman Army like Preterists thought? Seriously!? That was their mistake, it is the mistake of Premillennialists and the mistake of the AD 70 Theorists and many others! Because they can't seem to see the trees for the forest. So busy looking at the forest as the end all, they fail to "see" that it is all about the spiritual nature of each individual tree in the forest. For example, didn't you read:

Mark 8:23-25

• "And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw ought.
• And he looked up, and said, I see men as trees, walking.
• After that he put his hands again upon his eyes, and made him look up: and he was restored, and saw every man clearly."

Jesus was not struggling to heal the man. The partial sight was intentional and instructive.

Do you know why God wanted the blind man to see men AS TREE WALKING first? He wanted the blind man (and us) to see men as trees first to show us this is how God see us such as! Look, we have to have our eyes "fully" opened to see the trees clearly for what they really are, as God intended. We have to see them clearly before we can comprehend the nature of the forest.

Revelation 7:3-4

• "Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.
• And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel."

To God’s eyes, earth represents men. Sea represents men. Trees represent men. These are not landscapes—they are people, the servants of God sealed in their foreheads. Selah.

Likewise:

Revelation 9:4

• "And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads."

Again, grass represents men. Green things represent men. Trees represent men. God is viewing humanity individually, not geographically. Some are sealed. Some are unsealed. Those without the seal are subject to deception and judgment by false prophets and false christs during the short season by the smoke locusts. Selah.

Revelation and Mark (and John) were written in completely different styles and genres—or so it seems. But the spiritual language is the same. This is precisely why the Spirit of Christ is required to understand what God is actually saying. Without spiritual discernment, Scripture is read carnally like you do.

The same error applies to the Temple. It is not what you and many think Christ was speaking of—just as the Jews misunderstood Him. The Word has always spoken spiritually. Only the opened eye can see it. Spiritually Discerned! :-)

 

[claninja]

Which part of Jesus answer do you see where He addresses the temple destruction ?

Matthew 24:15-22

 

[David in NJ]

Matthew 24:15-22

The Abomination of Desolation/AoD spoken by Daniel the prophet is just around the corner.

Some prophecies repeat until all is fulfilled.

#1 - AoD appears just before the Second Coming = Matt 24:15-31

#2 - At His Second Coming is the Resurrection of every soul that the FATHER gives to CHRIST

#3 - You and i are still here waiting for the Second Coming of Christ = 1 Thess 1:10 , 2 Thess ch2

 

[TribulationSigns]

Matthew 24:15-22

Chuckle!

You really believe Matthew 24:15–22 was fulfilled in 70 AD? Then let’s slow down and read the text with spiritual discernment, not surface-level literalism.

First—the “holy place.”

Do you honestly think the Jerusalem temple was still “holy” in God’s eyes after Christ declared, “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate” (Matt. 23:38)? Sigh!

The true temple after the Cross is Christ's body, the church, (John 2:19–21; 1 Cor. 3:16). A stone building rejected by God cannot fulfill a prophecy concerning a holy place in 70AD!

Second—Judaea.

You assume Judaea means ethnic Jews and a strip of Middle Eastern land? Scripture does not support that.
“He is not a Jew, which is one outwardly” (Rom. 2:28–29).
Judaea, prophetically, represents the congregations of the world where covenant people of God are found at, not unbelieving national Israel. You’ve misidentified the audience.

Third—the housetop and the house.

Christ is not giving rooftop evacuation instructions.
The house represents one’s spiritual dwelling—belief, doctrine, identity (Matt. 7:24–27). Where the Elect are preaching from. The housetop is public profession. The clothes are spiritual covering and righteousness in Christ (Rev. 3:18).
This is about not returning to their church that is no longer representing God's Kingdom for the judgment has come upon her. It is not about grabbing a cloak in Jerusalem.

Fourth—the field.

The field consistently represents the world (Matt. 13:38) where Elect are out on a missionaries.
This is not a man plowing dirt outside Jerusalem—it is a warning to those laboring in the world not to turn back to fallen church that is under judgment.

Fifth—the woman, child, and those giving suck.

These are not random mothers caught in a Roman siege.
Scripture interprets Scripture:
The woman represents God’s congregation (Isa. 54:1; Rev. 12).
The children are spiritual offspring—new or immature believers.
This passage warns how devastating deception is for the spiritually vulnerable, not how inconvenient war or invasion is for pregnant women.

Sixth—winter and Sabbath.

If this were fulfilled in 70 AD, why would Gentile believers—who were never under Sabbath law—be warned about fleeing on the Sabbath?

Winter and Sabbath are spiritual conditions:

Winter = Summer Harvest has passed - meaning no more salvation after sealing of His men.
Sabbath = Sabbath is when no man can work in the Kingdom of God because all Elect has been secured.

This is why Christ told us to pray to make sure you are saved before it is too late. That is the whole point of the New Testament congregation. Not a escape plan from Roman Soldiers.

Seventh—the “Great Tribulation.”

You claim 70 AD was “the greatest tribulation since the beginning of the world, nor ever shall be” (Matt. 24:21)?
Really? Seriously?

Greater than the Flood?
Greater than genocides recorded everywhere else on Earth?
Global persecution of the growing Church across centuries?
Greater than what Revelation places at the end of the age?
That claim collapses under even minimal scrutiny.


Eighth—why the tribulation was shortened.

If this was merely Rome destroying Jerusalem, shortened for whose sake? Jesus says, “for the elect’s sake.” Unbelieving Jerusalem was not “the elect.” The Elect are God’s chosen in Christ across all nations (Matt. 24:31; Col. 3:12).

Then we read the very next verses:

Matthew 24:23-24
(23) Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
(24) For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

So let’s be clear:

Where were the false Christs and prophets in 70 AD Judea performing signs and wonders that nearly deceived the elect Church worldwide, really?? They weren’t! That phenomenon belongs to the New Testament Congregation, intensifying toward the end, AFTER the sealing of God's people are secured. It was not about a localized Roman siege.

So you've misidentified:

• Judaea
• The Jews
• The holy place
• The housetop
• The woman
• The child

That’s not a minor error—that’s a systemic failure to read Scripture spiritually.

Jesus did not say, “He that has a history book, let him understand.”
He said, “He that readeth, let him understand.”

You don’t need Josephus. You need eyes to see and ears to hear to what Christ actually talked about, humm??

 

[claninja]

You are not thinking carefully.

John 2:15-21
(15) And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;
(16) And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.
(17) And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.
(18) Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
(19) Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
(20) Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
(21) But he spake of the temple of his body.

Did you honestly think Jesus verbally clarified to the Jews that He meant the physical building standing before them? He did not. The Jews misunderstood Him, just as they repeatedly misunderstood His spiritual words.

John, however, writing after receiving the Holy Spirit, makes the meaning unmistakably clear: Jesus was not speaking of a physical structure at all. He was speaking of His Congregation as His Temple.

That Temple fell when the kingdom representative was taken from the Jews and in three days for their rejection of the Messiah the Prince, and the kingdom representative was given to other in three days. That was the sign given to the Jews. The Jews weren't told to watch for future destruction of stone buildings in the future at all! The error comes from reading Christ’s words carnally instead of spiritually, exactly as the Jews did in the passage itself.

The Scripture interprets itself—and it already tells you what the Temple is.

I think it’s important to note that the gospels were written after the cross, and after the pouring out of the spirit. That’s why you will find Holy Spirit inspired clarifications by the authors - such as John 2:18-21. Or the many prophesies that Jesus fulfilled according to Matthew.

The johannine clarification of what Jesus meant in John 2:18-21 is a DIFFERENT context with DIFFERENT referent than Matthew 24. Matthew 24 is not the same context as John and Matthew makes no clarifying note, that the olivet discourse is about a spiritual temple. Your position is your own personal post hoc allegorized belief.

 

[claninja]

Wrongo. Read the verses carefully:

John 2:18-21
(18) Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
(19) Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
(20) Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
(21) But he spake of the temple of his body.

Again, the "SIGN" (according to God's in-the-flesh Word) was that they would Destroy that Temple, and in three days Christ would Raise it up. Not after 37 years. And they "did" destroy that Temple, and in three days He did raise it up, which means the Sign was Completed/Fulfilled! At least, as far as the Word of God goes. What further sign did God's Word call for that I haven't read? Why do you think some Israel looks for another fulfillment of the coming Messiah? Because they don't recognize Jesus as the completion/fulfillment of that Prophesy. Why do you think some Christians, especially Premillennialists, still look for Elijah to come back before the coming of Christ? Because they don't recognize John as the completion/fulfillment of that Prophesy. They "CLAIM" he only part fulfilled it. Exact same error! Why do many Christians look for a future Restoration of National Israel? Exact same error. Same errors, different names.

The Physical Holy Temple was in AD 70 beside-the-point, irrelevant, unimportant, inconsequential, immaterial to prophesy! Another Holy Temple could be built in Israel tomorrow and it would not illustrate a thing, except that Israel is like every other nation, in need of a savior. Buildings and cities rise and fall and don't prove or disprove anything. In God's economy it is not "really" about physical Babylon, Euphrates river, meat and drink, the placement of 12 stones or geographical locations in the Middle East, whether 70AD, 2026AD, etc. Period! It is not even about physical lineage, respect of persons, mountains, etc., but in the spiritual realities that all these things represented. Things fulfilled that we cannot go back to. That would be like observing the Old Testament Feast of Weeks again today, when it was already fulfilled or completed in Christ.

Did not Israel use the similar "Historical-Grammatical" methodology, and were thus reading the Bible and looking for a Physical King to come and rule physically from the Physical city Jerusalem like the Premillennialists thought, or free them Physically from bondage of the Physical Roman Army like Preterists thought? Seriously!? That was their mistake, it is the mistake of Premillennialists and the mistake of the AD 70 Theorists and many others! Because they can't seem to see the trees for the forest. So busy looking at the forest as the end all, they fail to "see" that it is all about the spiritual nature of each individual tree in the forest. For example, didn't you read:

Mark 8:23-25

• "And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw ought.
• And he looked up, and said, I see men as trees, walking.
• After that he put his hands again upon his eyes, and made him look up: and he was restored, and saw every man clearly."

Jesus was not struggling to heal the man. The partial sight was intentional and instructive.

Do you know why God wanted the blind man to see men AS TREE WALKING first? He wanted the blind man (and us) to see men as trees first to show us this is how God see us such as! Look, we have to have our eyes "fully" opened to see the trees clearly for what they really are, as God intended. We have to see them clearly before we can comprehend the nature of the forest.

Revelation 7:3-4

• "Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.
• And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel."

To God’s eyes, earth represents men. Sea represents men. Trees represent men. These are not landscapes—they are people, the servants of God sealed in their foreheads. Selah.

Likewise:

Revelation 9:4

• "And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads."

Again, grass represents men. Green things represent men. Trees represent men. God is viewing humanity individually, not geographically. Some are sealed. Some are unsealed. Those without the seal are subject to deception and judgment by false prophets and false christs during the short season by the smoke locusts. Selah.

Revelation and Mark (and John) were written in completely different styles and genres—or so it seems. But the spiritual language is the same. This is precisely why the Spirit of Christ is required to understand what God is actually saying. Without spiritual discernment, Scripture is read carnally like you do.

The same error applies to the Temple. It is not what you and many think Christ was speaking of—just as the Jews misunderstood Him. The Word has always spoken spiritually. Only the opened eye can see it. Spiritually Discerned! :-)

No, just a post hoc allegorization.

 

[TribulationSigns]

No, just a post hoc allegorization.

Seeing a man as tree walking is post hoc allegorization? LOL!!!!!

I would say that you are having a carnal hermeneutic or natural-man interpretation which rooted in:

1 Corinthians 2:14 – “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God…”
John 6:63 – “The flesh profiteth nothing…”
2 Corinthians 3:6 – “The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.”

Praying for you.

 

[claninja]

The Abomination of Desolation/AoD spoken by Daniel the prophet is just around the corner.

Some prophecies repeat until all is fulfilled.

#1 - AoD appears just before the Second Coming = Matt 24:15-31

#2 - At His Second Coming is the Resurrection of every soul that the FATHER gives to CHRIST

#3 - You and i are still here waiting for the Second Coming of Christ = 1 Thess 1:10 , 2 Thess ch2

I disagree. Matthew 24:15, contains the Greek words for “holy place”. Since, I don’t speak original koine Greek, I’ll appeal to Thayer’s, whose lexicon has the holy place meaning the temple building in Matthew 24:15.

• a. an inhabited place, as a city, village, district: Luke 4:37; Luke 10:1; Acts 12:12; Acts 16:3; Acts 27:2, 8; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 2:14; 1 Thessalonians 1:8; Revelation 18:17 (G L T Tr WH); τόντόπον καί τό ἔθνος, the place which the nation inhabit, i. e. the holy land and the Jewish people, John 11:48 (cf. 2 Macc. 5:19f); τόπος ἅγιος, the temple (which the Sept. of Isa. Ix. 13 calls ὁ ἅγιος τόπος τοῦΘεοῦ), Matthew 24:15.

This understanding of the word as the temple is supported by the context - Jesus answering the disciples question about when the temple destruction would occur.

 

[claninja]

Chuckle!

You really believe Matthew 24:15–22 was fulfilled in 70 AD? Then let’s slow down and read the text with spiritual discernment, not surface-level literalism.

First—the “holy place.”

Do you honestly think the Jerusalem temple was still “holy” in God’s eyes after Christ declared, “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate” (Matt. 23:38)? Sigh!

The true temple after the Cross is Christ's body, the church, (John 2:19–21; 1 Cor. 3:16). A stone building rejected by God cannot fulfill a prophecy concerning a holy place in 70AD!

Second—Judaea.

You assume Judaea means ethnic Jews and a strip of Middle Eastern land? Scripture does not support that.
“He is not a Jew, which is one outwardly” (Rom. 2:28–29).
Judaea, prophetically, represents the congregations of the world where covenant people of God are found at, not unbelieving national Israel. You’ve misidentified the audience.

Third—the housetop and the house.

Christ is not giving rooftop evacuation instructions.
The house represents one’s spiritual dwelling—belief, doctrine, identity (Matt. 7:24–27). Where the Elect are preaching from. The housetop is public profession. The clothes are spiritual covering and righteousness in Christ (Rev. 3:18).
This is about not returning to their church that is no longer representing God's Kingdom for the judgment has come upon her. It is not about grabbing a cloak in Jerusalem.

Fourth—the field.

The field consistently represents the world (Matt. 13:38) where Elect are out on a missionaries.
This is not a man plowing dirt outside Jerusalem—it is a warning to those laboring in the world not to turn back to fallen church that is under judgment.

Fifth—the woman, child, and those giving suck.

These are not random mothers caught in a Roman siege.
Scripture interprets Scripture:
The woman represents God’s congregation (Isa. 54:1; Rev. 12).
The children are spiritual offspring—new or immature believers.
This passage warns how devastating deception is for the spiritually vulnerable, not how inconvenient war or invasion is for pregnant women.

Sixth—winter and Sabbath.

If this were fulfilled in 70 AD, why would Gentile believers—who were never under Sabbath law—be warned about fleeing on the Sabbath?

Winter and Sabbath are spiritual conditions:

Winter = Summer Harvest has passed - meaning no more salvation after sealing of His men.
Sabbath = Sabbath is when no man can work in the Kingdom of God because all Elect has been secured.

This is why Christ told us to pray to make sure you are saved before it is too late. That is the whole point of the New Testament congregation. Not a escape plan from Roman Soldiers.

Seventh—the “Great Tribulation.”

You claim 70 AD was “the greatest tribulation since the beginning of the world, nor ever shall be” (Matt. 24:21)?
Really? Seriously?

Greater than the Flood?
Greater than genocides recorded everywhere else on Earth?
Global persecution of the growing Church across centuries?
Greater than what Revelation places at the end of the age?
That claim collapses under even minimal scrutiny.


Eighth—why the tribulation was shortened.

If this was merely Rome destroying Jerusalem, shortened for whose sake? Jesus says, “for the elect’s sake.” Unbelieving Jerusalem was not “the elect.” The Elect are God’s chosen in Christ across all nations (Matt. 24:31; Col. 3:12).

Then we read the very next verses:

Matthew 24:23-24
(23) Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
(24) For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

So let’s be clear:

Where were the false Christs and prophets in 70 AD Judea performing signs and wonders that nearly deceived the elect Church worldwide, really?? They weren’t! That phenomenon belongs to the New Testament Congregation, intensifying toward the end, AFTER the sealing of God's people are secured. It was not about a localized Roman siege.

So you've misidentified:

• Judaea
• The Jews
• The holy place
• The housetop
• The woman
• The child

That’s not a minor error—that’s a systemic failure to read Scripture spiritually.

Jesus did not say, “He that has a history book, let him understand.”
He said, “He that readeth, let him understand.”

You don’t need Josephus. You need eyes to see and ears to hear to what Christ actually talked about, humm??

your “spiritual discernments” are all just post hoc allegorizations, nothing more or less.

You are reassigning symbolic meanings to concrete terms after rejecting the plain referent, rather than deriving those meanings from the text itself.

Jesus answered the disciples questions, which include an inquiry about destruction of the physical temple buildings. There is no indication within the passage of Matthew 24 that signals or explains that Jesus was actually talking about a spiritual temple, a spiritual winter, a spiritual Judea, etc, etc …..it’s why your argument requires you to go far beyond Matthew 24 and create a patchwork of any other NT verse besides the one we are discussing - that is your post hoc allegorizations.

 

[claninja]

Seeing a man as tree walking is post hoc allegorization? LOL!!!!!

I would say that you are having a carnal hermeneutic or natural-man interpretation which rooted in:

1 Corinthians 2:14 – “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God…”
John 6:63 – “The flesh profiteth nothing…”
2 Corinthians 3:6 – “The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.”

Praying for you.

Comparing a literal reading of Matthew 24 to “seeing men as trees walking” is a false analogy. Ridiculing the plain meaning does not alter the text; reinterpretation occurs only when the literal referents are discarded without contextual cause — which is precisely what your post-hoc allegorization does.

As for accusing me of having a “carnal” or natural-man interpretation, the Scriptures you cite (1 Corinthians 2:14; John 6:63; 2 Corinthians 3:6) do not license inventing meanings the text never assigns. The Spirit illuminates the literal text, not erases it. Understanding the historical and geographic reality of Jesus’ instructions is not “carnal”; it is faithful exegesis.

 

[Wish-it]

I agree with you that the OT talks about the millennium without using the term “thousand”. If we agree Jesus was given that work to do, why did He say “I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do” in John 17:4? Jesus said that way before the Premil millennium.

I have finished the work which thou gavest me is covered under John 6.37,38,39.

 

[Wish-it]

What work do you think he finished?

Probably John 6.37,38,39