A recent session I had with Chatgpt pertaining to some of the Discourse

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes, the destruction of Jerusalem was both a physical and spiritual event, representing God's physical and spiritual judgment upon apostasy, and signifying the passing of the old covenant to the New by the physical destruction of all physical vestiges of the former, and the spiritual eclipse of the old testament national economy by the New Testament Kingdom of God.

You do understand that the old covenant was made obsolete by the blood of Christ which also established the new covenant, though, right?

 

[covenantee]

You do understand that the old covenant was made obsolete by the blood of Christ which also established the new covenant, though, right?

Absolutely.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Absolutely.

I was pretty sure that was the case, but sometimes preterists who think that the old covenant ended in 70 AD will say things similar to what you said.

 

[covenantee]

I was pretty sure that was the case, but sometimes preterists who think that the old covenant ended in 70 AD will say things similar to what you said.

Nope. Calvary covered it.

But we know that Messiah commanded and controlled AD 70. What was its purpose?

 

[ewq1938]

Revelation 11
2 But do not measure the outer courtyard of the temple [naos - the sanctuary of God]; leave it out, because it has been given to the Gentiles, and they will trample on the holy city for forty-two months.
3 And I will grant my two witnesses authority to prophesy for 1,260 days, dressed in sackcloth.

The only city called the holy city in Revelation is new Jerusalem. It's contrasted with the city spiritually called Sodom and Gomorrah where the Lord was crucified.

Old Jerusalem is also called the Holy city. It just became less than holy but that which has been profaned can also be rejuvinated. That city will be inhabited by Christ and immortal saints during the Mill.

Zechariah 14
2 For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to wage war; the city will be taken, its houses plundered, and the women raped. Then half of the city will go into exile, but the remainder of the people will not be taken away.
3 Then the LORD will go to battle and fight against those nations, just as he fought battles in ancient days.
4 On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives which lies to the east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in half from east to west, leaving a great valley. Half the mountain will move northward and the other half southward.

IMO it's possible that the above in Zechariah 14 is where the spiritual fulfillment you mentioned meets the literal fulfillment - because His feet are standing on the Mount of Olives. After the above occurs (not before it occurs) the resurrected saints will be gathered into the land - which IMO is in a new heavens and new earth - because He will make all things new.

The events described in Luke 21:20-24 and especially verse 24 have so many parallels in history and in prophetic scripture that it's difficult (for me) to know where and how to place it - because it was also fulfilled in literal Jerusalem in 70 AD - which as you say, is indeed a type of any future fulfillment

- but those who butcher Jesus's reply to the disciples' question on the Mount of Olives ignore the fact that He spoke only about the persecution and tribulation that would befall the living stones of the New Testament Temple, and instead they have Him talking again about the old covenant temple.

Yes, and as we know he did not even speak of the temple in the discourse. They have to force something said at the temple into it and ignore that it is not address, not even in related Rev passages. The only destruction to Jerusalem in Rev is from an earthquake and it's only partial damage. I call the whole thing AC Deception70 because that's really what it does to many endtimes theologies and fits in with how all false doctrines deny the AC in some way. In Preterism, no one has to worry about identifying the AC because it happened in the past. It's dangerous because the AC is coming, and he will be a master in deception. These various doctrines exist now to pave his way so most of the church will have no idea he isn't what he will claim to be.

 

[Zao is life]

Old Jerusalem is also called the Holy city.

Only in the gospels. Not in the Revelation. The "cities" mentioned in the Revelation are:-

1. "Babylon the Great".
2. The city "spiritually called Sodom and Egypt".
3. The cities of the nations which fell when the 7th bowl of wrath was poured out.
4. "New Jerusalem".

There are no verses in the Revelation where "Babylon the Great", or the city "spiritually called Sodom and Egypt", or the cities of the nations which fell when the 7th bowl of wrath was poured out, are called "the holy city",

- but the Revelation calls New Jerusalem "the holy city" three times:

Revelation 21:2; Revelation 21:10; and Revelation 22:19.

Revelation 11:2 is talking about the holy city. Is this verse an exception?

It just became less than holy but that which has been profaned can also be rejuvinated. That city will be inhabited by Christ and immortal saints during the Mill.

Yes. The camp of the saints in Revelation 20. It's going to be very different to what we see now.

Yes, and as we know he did not even speak of the temple in the discourse. They have to force something said at the temple into it and ignore that it is not address, not even in related Rev passages. The only destruction to Jerusalem in Rev is from an earthquake and it's only partial damage. I call the whole thing AC Deception70 because that's really what it does to many endtimes theologies and fits in with how all false doctrines deny the AC in some way. In Preterism, no one has to worry about identifying the AC because it happened in the past. It's dangerous because the AC is coming, and he will be a master in deception. These various doctrines exist now to pave his way so most of the church will have no idea he isn't what he will claim to be.

I agree. I believe all false doctrine that has become fortified in the theology of "isms" in main-stream churches has the same source - and that source is not the Holy Spirit, or the words of biblical scripture.

That's why "Satan was bound" is also a really bad doctrine (whether they say it was at Calvary, or at the time of His ascension, or when He cast demons out of a man - no one who believes Satan has been bound seems to agree on when he was bound).

 

[marks]

The difference between one group and another among saints is that the group I belong to always holds the scriptures as the authority over our understanding so that when scripture reveals our misunderstanding, we immediately acknowledge it, with gratitude to God that He showed us what we were missing

Don't we all say this same thing? Do I not also learn and grow as I receive fresh learning from the Holy Spirit?

I don't see that as separating others. I think the true reason is something else.

Much love!

 

[rwb]

The time drawing near was that of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. All of the evidence cited of false Christs and deceivers appeared during the years between Jesus' discourse and 70 AD.

Certainly the Church can draw spiritual lessons from any and all Scriptural history. But Jesus' predictions were clearly germane to His disciples and followers, and were clearly fulfilled in the period between His discourse and 70 AD.

I don't believe 30 plus years nor 2000 plus years define that which was drawing near. I agree the things Christ referenced did become to come to pass from the cross forward, and still beyond 70 AD. Yes, Jesus' predictions were clearly meant to awaken His first century disciples, but all that Christ said would come upon them continue well beyond 70 AD, and are pertinent for disciples of every age to follow.

 

[ewq1938]

Only in the gospels. Not in the Revelation. The "cities" mentioned in the Revelation are:-

1. "Babylon the Great".
2. The city "spiritually called Sodom and Egypt".
3. The cities of the nations which fell when the 7th bowl of wrath was poured out.
4. "New Jerusalem".

5. The Holy City (old Jerusalem) Rev 11
6. The great city (old Jerusalem) Rev 11
7. The beloved city (old Jerusalem) Rev 20

- but the Revelation calls New Jerusalem "the holy city" three times:

OJ called that once, and great and beloved.

That's why "Satan was bound" is also a really bad doctrine (whether they say it was at Calvary, or at the time of His ascension, or when He cast demons out of a man - no one who believes Satan has been bound seems to agree on when he was bound).

And no change at all before this supposed binding and after it, plus they ignore the imprisonment part that happens immediately after the binding.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Maybe I wasn't being clear? I was meaning after the disciples asked Jesus their questions and that He then began answering them. He began in all 3 accounts answering in this manner---Matthew 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. 5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

To me, you're even being less clear now! My response remains the same. The entire focus of the Olivet Discourse revolves around Jesus declaration that the Temple buildings would be destroyed and that Jerusalem would be defeated. This would happen in his generation, which is from our point of view, an obvious reference to the Romans.

This obviously has zero to do with why the city and temple would be destroyed in their near future. Not to mention, His warning is still applicable to us in our day and age. And that there is no literal temple that is going to be destroyed in our near future.

As I said, the warning of false prophets and false Christs clearly is a reference to those who would deny that Jerusalem would fall to the Romans. Their view of Messiah was that he would never allow Jerusalem to fall again. But it did.

As to why I submitted my session with Chatgpt is because it's as if it could read my mind, argue what I would argue, reason these things how I would reason these things. I had very little input in that session, yet based on the little I did input, Chatgpt articulated my view to a T. How? I'm not sure? Unless you are logged in to Chatgpt, it does not recall any prior sessions with you. I was not logged in at the time, and everything I submitted in the OP was exactly how that session went down.

If nothing else, if some have failed to understand my view in the past, it should be crystal clear now. Assuming one has read the entire OP.

I really don't care about Chatgpt. I care about how the Scriptures are being treated by real minds--not programmed minds.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Neither is mentioned a single time in the OD.

Saying it does not make it so.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The temple Jesus answered them about was not the temple they asked about. In His reply He said nothing again about the temple in Jerusalem.

Absurd. The fact Jesus was the New Temple did not in any way mean Jesus failed to speak to the Old Temple of the Law. Failing to wrap up the Old Covenant would've been a complete failure to transition to the New Covenant.

 

[Zao is life]

Absurd. The fact Jesus was the New Temple did not in any way mean Jesus failed to speak to the Old Temple of the Law. Failing to wrap up the Old Covenant would've been a complete failure to transition to the New Covenant.

It's absurd that even though Jesus said nothing again about the old covenant temple in Jerusalem in His reply the disciples' question on the Mount of Olives, speaking only to the living stones of the New Testament Temple about what they were to experience and warning them about false Christ's and false prophets, exhorting them not to be deceived,

- many churches switch which temple He was speaking about.

They asked Jesus about the temple - the old covenant temple.
Jesus answered them about the Temple - the New Testament Temple.

Jesus was not exhorting the stones of the old covenant temple not to be deceived and warning those stones about the tribulation and persecution they would suffer for His name's sake - he was exhorting YOU and ME not to be deceived and talking about OUR tribulation.

The last time he spoke about that old temple was in that temple and just outside it, as He was leaving.

It does not matter how far the Mount of Olives is from the Temple Mount - it takes more than 10 minutes to walk down from the Temple Mount and cross the valley and walk up the Mount of Olives.

There is a whole valley between your assertion and the Temple Jesus was talking about on the Mount of Olives.

 

[covenantee]

Absurd. The fact Jesus was the New Temple did not in any way mean Jesus failed to speak to the Old Temple of the Law. Failing to wrap up the Old Covenant would've been a complete failure to transition to the New Covenant.

Absurd indeed.

One would wonder why Jesus didn't command His disciples to go to the pub while He discoursed, as nothing He was about to say would have any relevance to them.

But it certainly did have relevance, notably demonstrated years later by the Judaean Christians remembering and heeding Jesus warning (Luke 21:20,21), and fleeing and surviving.

Thank God not one of them was a fantasy futurist.

 

[Davidpt]

The last time he spoke about that old temple was in that temple and just outside it, as He was leaving.

To be fair maybe, He implied it per Luke 21:20-23. Since that did lead to both the city and temple being destroyed some 40 years later. Everything else in the Discourse in all 3 accounts have zero to do with the 2nd temple, though. Meaning after He started answering them once they sat down at the Mount of Olives.

All one has to do is go through what all Jesus said in the Discourse, then ask themselves honestly, is this the reason why the 2nd temple was destroyed. Is that the reason it was destroyed? So on and so on..

For example.

Matthew 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.


Is this the reason the 2nd temple was destroyed?

Matthew 24:6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.

Or is this the reason the 2nd temple was destroyed? So on and so on...

 

[Zao is life]

To be fair maybe, He implied it per Luke 21:20-23. Since that did lead to both the city and temple being destroyed some 40 years later. Everything else in the Discourse in all 3 accounts have zero to do with the 2nd temple, though. Meaning after He started answering them once they sat down at the Mount of Olives.

All one has to do is go through what all Jesus said in the Discourse, then ask themselves honestly, is this the reason why the 2nd temple was destroyed. Is that the reason it was destroyed? So on and so on..

For example.

Matthew 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.


Is this the reason the 2nd temple was destroyed?

Matthew 24:6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.

Or is this the reason the 2nd temple was destroyed? So on and so on...

You are being fair to Luke's account of the subjects (plural) Jesus answered them with - but not to Matthew's or Mark's accounts of the subject (singular) Jesus answered them with.

Luke 7
7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?

20 When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
21 Then let them which are in Judea 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.

Luke also recorded Jesus speaking to them about the persecution they were to endure.

Matthew and Mark's account do not have Jesus mentioning either the temple again, or the city in His reply. The abomination of desolation in the holy place does not refer to anything regarding Roman legions or the temple. The temple wasn't even the holy place anymore in 70 AD. I believe you agree with that.

None of the three gospels have Jesus mentioning the temple again in His reply - but Luke has Him giving them that sign in Luke 21:20-24 - if it is indeed talking about the events of 70 AD, and nothing else.

So you are being fair to Luke's account.

I agree with the rest of your argument above about Jesus' reply having nothing to do with the temple being destroyed,

PS: God bless your and your family's Christmas time.

PPS: I'm sorry about me getting angry about ChatGPT being used as a 3rd party in your other thread, and being hostile in the way I replied (because you are correct in saying that I was venting frustration about ChatGPT being used).

I also get annoyed when people use what the ECF said, and what commentaries and famous sermons etc etc have said - as a 3rd party to back up what they are arguing from the scriptures

- but I should have walked away and come back and found a better way to word what I was saying in my reply. Especially because I was backing you up when one of the other posters who I now have on ignore was gunning at you for the same thing. So I proved myself a complete hypocrite in regard to that - which I knew I had done - making me even more angry because of my own hypocrisy.

I apologize.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Absurd indeed.

One would wonder why Jesus didn't command His disciples to go to the pub while He discoursed, as nothing He was about to say would have any relevance to them.

But it certainly did have relevance, notably demonstrated years later by the Judaean Christians remembering and heeding Jesus warning (Luke 21:20,21), and fleeing and surviving.

Thank God not one of them was a fantasy futurist.

I'm a Futurist, but certainly not a Fantasy Futurist. And I should think that relying on a future memory for instructions to Christians in the future is a ridiculous way to guide disciples. It is much more reasonable to assume that Jesus was instructing his disciples for what they were *soon* to experience--not what future generations of Christians would experience.

Thanks! I think we agree?

 

[covenantee]

I believe Jesus was instructing his disciples on how to survive the coming 70 AD experience. What on earth do you think he was preparing them for--future generations that hadn't even been born yet?

I affirm your belief that Jesus was instructing his disciples on how to survive the coming 70 AD experience, so I presume that your question is not directed to me.

 

[ewq1938]

Saying it does not make it so.

It doesn't appear in the OD, and anyone can look and see for themselves. It was mentioned BEFORE the OD, but not once in the OD.

 

[Randy Kluth]

It doesn't appear in the OD, and anyone can look and see for themselves. It was mentioned BEFORE the OD, but not once in the OD.

Funny how we see things differently. I see the entire OD as related to the fall of the Temple and the absolute annihilation of the OT Temple!

For example...
1) The preliminary "birth pang" signs were anticipatory of the Fall of the Temple in Jerusalem. They outline the sins of Israel that would lead to this judgment, along with climate signs that showed God unhappiness with Israel.
2) The "birth pang" signs led directly to the "Abomination of Desolation" which in Luke 21 was identified as the Roman Army bringing siege against Jerusalem. This also had to do with the Fall of the OT Temple.
3) Luke also spoke of the exile of the Jewish People to comprise an age-long Diaspora. This was to begin with the 70 AD Fall of Jerusalem.

So, even though Jesus was asked about his 2nd Coming, and about how this related to the Fall of the Temple, the major focus of the entire Discourse was on this imminent judgment to fall upon the Jewish People and to characterize the entire age up until the 2nd Coming and the inception of God's Kingdom on earth.

And you think there is *nothing* about the Fall of the Temple in this Discourse? Amazing!