parable of the fig tree generation

[Douggg]

Right, His coming wasn’t secretive to those in Jerusalem in 70AD. It was like lightning or fire that came down from heaven and devoured them.

Jesus did not return in 70AD. His return is still future.

 

[grafted branch]

Jesus did not return in 70AD. His return is still future.

Ok, I’m not denying a future return of Christ, but simply pointing out that lightning is a local event just like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was a local event. Not every eye saw those events.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Ok, I’m not denying a future return of Christ, but simply pointing out that lightning is a local event just like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was a local event. Not every eye saw those events.

Show us where God said in His Holy Word that the "lightning is a local event." What lightning?

 

[ewq1938]

Right, His coming wasn’t secretive to those in Jerusalem in 70AD. It was like lightning or fire that came down from heaven and devoured them.

There was no such coming or lightning/fire in Ad70. The passage speaks of teh future second coming, not any time or event of the past.

 

[grafted branch]

Show us where God said in His Holy Word that the "lightning is a local event." What lightning?

Luke 17:24 For the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other.

The lightning is referring to the literal lightning as it is observed by humans standing on the earth. It can’t be referring to any other type of lightning that would be unknown to the reader because the verse is making an implicit comparison between something that is not known with something that is known.

 

[grafted branch]

There was no such coming or lightning/fire in Ad70. The passage speaks of teh future second coming, not any time or event of the past.

Josephus described various extraordinary phenomena in the sky, including a great light that shone around the altar and temple, which appeared to be bright as day for half an hour. He also mentioned sightings of chariots and armed soldiers in the sky, a "star resembling a sword" and a comet that lasted a year.

Do you have any credible sources that show these events didn’t happen?

 

[ewq1938]

Josephus described various extraordinary phenomena in the sky, including a great light that shone around the altar and temple, which appeared to be bright as day for half an hour. He also mentioned sightings of chariots and armed soldiers in the sky, a "star resembling a sword" and a comet that lasted a year.

Do you have any credible sources that show these events didn’t happen?

I would not trust what he claimed, nor does any of that match prophecy of the second coming.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Luke 17:24 For the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other.

The lightning is referring to the literal lightning as it is observed by humans standing on the earth. It can’t be referring to any other type of lightning that would be unknown to the reader because the verse is making an implicit comparison between something that is not known with something that is known.

Literal lightning? Look at what you wrote to other:

"Josephus described various extraordinary phenomena in the sky, including a great light that shone around the altar and temple, which appeared to be bright as day for half an hour. He also mentioned sightings of chariots and armed soldiers in the sky, a "star resembling a sword" and a comet that lasted a year."

Funny. You rather to listen to heathen man named Josephus instead of God.

And I can see that you take the Preterist understanding of "This generation." However, what God really said was that:

Matthew 24:33

• "So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
• Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."

Has ALL these things Christ spoke of passed away? Of course not. They didn't see the sign of the Son of man in heaven, all the tribes of the earth mourn, and the Son of man came in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. No, all these things Christ spoke of has not been fulfilled. And so this generation which Christ spoke of has not passed. ..and won't pass until all is fulfilled. And...

Matthew 24:21

• "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be."

No, this did not happened before, or at A.D. 70.

Matthew 24:24

• "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."

No, this did not happened before A.D. 70.

Matthew 24:27

• "For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."

No, this did not happened before A.D. 70.

Matthew 24:29

• "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:"

No, this did not happened before A.D. 70. No, all of this was not fulfilled, and thus a.d. 70 cannot be what the prophecy spoke of.

But let me ask you a question. What abomination stood in what Holy Place in A.D. 70? Was the Jewish Temple God's holy place in A.D. 70? That would be contrary to God's word, would it not? Hadn't God already declared it fallen and a house of bondage? Or am I missing something? When Christ died on the cross the veil of the Temple was split from top to bottom in the earthquake illustrating that it was no longer that which hang between the holy place and God anymore. The way into the Holiest was now through Christ, which the Temple merely foreshadowed. How much more does God have to do to alert us that this building was no longer the Holy Temple of God? Israel had fallen, Israel had been cut off, their house had been left unto them desolate, there was no holy place in that Temple that even could have abomination stand in it. Abomination was already standing in it. It was already "LEFT" unto them desolate. ...if we will receive it!

Lightening?
Matthew 24:26-29

• "Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
• For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
• For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
• Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken

Do we take that literally. Did Christ return in AD 70? Did Immediately after the great tribulation of for believers in those days, Christ came on the clouds of Glory with his saints? Answer your own question. The answer is, "THIS" is why these events didn't literally take place in AD 70. Because it would make a mockery out of scripture!

Lightning is often a synonym for God's judgment. And it's not the literal Sun going dark, nor the Moon darkened or turning to blood, nor are physical stars falling to this earth, or a flashings of lightning (as if they could, and be a SIGN), but spiritually God's light has gone out, and the blood of the prophets is required.

 

[grafted branch]

But let me ask you a question. What abomination stood in what Holy Place in A.D. 70?

I don’t think the AOD took place in 70AD, so I would say none.

Was the Jewish Temple God's holy place in A.D. 70?

No

That would be contrary to God's word, would it not?

Yes

Hadn't God already declared it fallen and a house of bondage?

Yes

Or am I missing something?

I think you’re missing my view of the days being shortened.

 

[TribulationSigns]

I don’t think the AOD took place in 70AD, so I would say none.


No


Yes


Yes


I think you’re missing my view of the days being shortened.

The "Days being shortened" did not take place in 1st century. Sorry!

 

[grafted branch]

The "Days being shortened" did not take place in 1st century. Sorry!

Well I say they were shortened in the first century. If they weren’t shortened at that time then no flesh would be saved now.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Well I say they were shortened in the first century. If they weren’t shortened at that time then no flesh would be saved now.

 

[covenantee]

What abomination stood in what Holy Place in A.D. 70?

Luke 21
20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

The Roman armies were an abomination to the Jews because of the pagan ensigns which they worshiped.
The Roman armies stood in the holy city Jerusalem.
Bringing desolation.
In 70 AD.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Luke 21
20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

The Roman armies were an abomination to the Jews because of the pagan ensigns which they worshiped.
The Roman armies stood in the holy city Jerusalem.
Bringing desolation.
In 70 AD.

Ahh.. I think you misunderstood. :-)

Let take a look in Matthew 22.

Matthew 22:7
(7) But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.

While the parable in Matthew 22 talks about armies, it's quite obvious that they are NOT literal/physical armies of a earthly kingdom anymore than Revelation talks about physical armies, horsemen or cities being destroyed. And people who think so follow the same carnal logic to come to those conclusions. Joel 2 talks about the Lord's army that he sent among the children of Zion, and talks about their restoration as through Calvary. This of course all taking place before and at the cross.

Joel 2:28

• "And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:"

This "afterward" is the aftermath of the destruction caused the the King's army, which of course clearly speaks of the restoration of the congregation of God in the New Testament through the cross of Christ. It has nothing to do with Roman armies of 70 A.D., but of fulfillment in Christ.

Acts 2:16-17

• "But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
• And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:"

As I've been saying all along, there is the fulfillment of the destruction of the city, the people fallen, and its restoration in Christ Jesus. The Biblical fact is, the Lord has restored the captivity, not "will restore it" as many teach. The restoration has already been taken place through Christ once, and for all.

Second, the parable of Matthew 22 says not one word about waiting until 70 A.D. to bring about the destruction of the city and people, or about a Roman army being the Lord's, or about a ruler Titus or any of the other alleged proofs some offer as support for their Physical city destruction supposition. This, when it seems perfectly clear God is not talking about a physical city within Israel, but the whole congregation of Israel, using the holy city as the kingdom representation. They have the kingdom no more, and haven't since it was taken from them at the cross like I have said MANY TIMES:

Matthew 21:43

• "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."

Moreover, as I said before, if the destruction was of a physical city, then obviously, rationally and logically the rebuilding would have to be of that same alleged physical city. Clearly the parable illustrates the rebuilding is the New Testament congregation. Why? Because the destruction was the Old Testament congregation. People are just not thinking clearly or using a sound hermeneutic when they inconsistently see a literal/physical place instead of the Lord's covenanted people represented by Jerusalem. Let read Matthew 22 together slowly:

Matthew 22:2-14

• "The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
• And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.
• Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.
• But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:
• And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.
• But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
• Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.
• Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.
• So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.
• And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
• And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
• Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
• For many are called, but few are chosen."

Are we going to go by what "seems" right in our own eyes by reading the book of Josephus as interpreter, or by the authoritative Word of God explaining it by comparing scripture with Scripture? This parable actually supports the understanding of this being the Old Testament congregation that was destroyed at the cross and being rebuilt in the New Testament congregation, rather than a physical city that was destroyed in 70AD after the cross. Understand, you need to remember that this is talking about what the "Kingdom of heaven" is, likened unto. In other words, the congregation on Earth. Not physical temple or even city!

(Continue to next post)

 

[TribulationSigns]

(Continue from previous post)

Moreover, if the wedding, the bidding to it, the slain oxen, the farm, the merchandise, the fatlings, and the guests on the highways are not literal things at a very literal wedding, what would make anyone think the armies of the king would magically, and out of context, be a absolute literal/physical army of Romans in the midst of all this? Come on! Think about it! That makes no sense. It's only accepted because Christians follow the leaders rather than sound study practices or hermeneutics. That is why we have a thousand different versions of every doctrine known to the church. Not because truth is so unattainable, but because of the stubborn will of man.

Third, after the city was destroyed, then God sent out His servants to secure wedding guests. Are we to then suppose that the church waited over 40 years until 70 A.D. when a physical destruction of Jerusalem took place before God (this King) sent His servants out to find guests? Huh?! The whole idea is inconsistent because when something is not true it generally is always inconsistent. For example, it won't fit because there is no real harmony as with God inspired truth. The biblical fact is, God sent his servants out to secure guests to the wedding when he poured out His holy Spirit at Pentecost, not over 40 years after Pentecost after a destruction in 70AD.

Fourth, there is not one jot or tittle in God's inerrant word about all stones falling being an exaggeration or a physical army knocking down physical bricks in 70 A.D., because it's speculation. That's not even taking into account that the physical city Jerusalem "in 70 A.D." was no longer the Lord's Holy City that it would even qualify! It hadn't been God's Holy City since the time of the cross. There was a "New Jerusalem," and it certainly was not represented by the physical Jerusalem in 70 A.D., The only holy city Jerusalem that qualifies for being destroyed before the rebuilding was the congregation of God that was destroyed when Christ was crucified. So the use of these passages of Matthew 22 in an attempt to justify a carnal world view of a city's destruction upon Mount Moriah by the people of a evil Prince in 70 A.D., is without Rock solid foundation. Foundation upon the WORD of God rather than history books.

The armies that destroyed the holy city were the people themselves who scripture says compassed Christ about, and who pierced his hands and feet. They stumbled over the stone and destroyed both city and sanctuary! They are those who came against Jerusalem by being against Christ. They were the children of their father, the messengers who were ruled by their King Satan. The kingdom of God at that time suffered violence and was taken by force, until Satan was cast out of the kingdom of heaven (old testament congregation), and his messengers with him, and their kingdom given to another (new testament congregation). Christ spoiled the Kingdom by conquest and set its captives free!! It's not a physical Kingdom in physical heaven with an army of supernatural angels around a pregnant women floating in space with physical stars on her head. It's the representation of the Holy city, the kingdom of heaven represented on earth, and symbolized with cryptic imagery you see in books like Revelation. The city was destroyed by an army alright, but not a Roman one in 70 A.D., but by Satan's messengers, the unbelieving Jewish people of the Prince who had turned against Him and had taken it by force. This is the battle where Old testament Israel fell, and it was realized at the cross, not after 70 A.D.

Revelation 12:7-10

• "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
• And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
• And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
• And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night."

Christ defeated the accuser Satan and his messengers and the Lord's messengers defeated them by His blood, not the swords, staves and armies of 70 A.D Roman soliders! When we find what armies these verses of Revelation 12 represent, what battle of messengers this was, what accuser was cast down and how the Lord's servants, His army, overcame Satan's army by the blood of Christ, then maybe it will start to dawn upon us that it be revealed just how the enemies encamped against the Holy city and in the end were defeated by Christ and cast out. The result being that the New Testament Church was established. Not in 70 AD, but by and through the army who triumphs through the blood of Christ.

Selah

The Olivet Discourse, including Luke 21, was not a prophecy about the fall of the Old Testament congregation we read in Matthew 22 and Joel 2. Rather, it speaks to the New Testament congregation in the short season period leading up to Christ’s Second Coming. The New Testament congregation is the holy place on this side of the Cross, but it will experience apostasy through false prophets and false Christs who lead many churches into desolation when Satan was loosened from the bottomless pit. He will do the same with professed Christians, just as Satan did with the Old Testament congregation unbelieving Jews at the time of the Cross. The TRUTH is the Olivet Discourse has NOTHING to do with 70AD or Roman Soldiers at all. Sorry!

 

[covenantee]

Ahh.. I think you misunderstood. :-)

Luke didn't misunderstand.

The Holy Spirit who inspired Luke didn't misunderstand.

The Christians who recognized and heeded and survived what Luke through the Holy Spirit had prophesied didn't misunderstand.

Nothing to do with Christ’s Second Coming.

Nothing to be sorry about!!

 

[TribulationSigns]

Luke didn't misunderstand.

The Holy Spirit who inspired Luke didn't misunderstand.

The Christians who recognized and heeded and survived what Luke through the Holy Spirit had prophesied didn't misunderstand.

Nothing to do with Christ’s Second Coming.

Nothing to be sorry about!!

Interesting criticism coming from someone who does not even quote God’s Word, while my statements are grounded in Scripture which you did not even biblically refuted. Ultimately, the Lord will judge who faithfully testifies to His Word, and I am fully comfortable leaving that judgment to Him.

 

[covenantee]

Interesting criticism coming from someone who does not even quote God’s Word, while my statements are grounded in Scripture which you did not even biblically refuted. Ultimately, the Lord will judge who faithfully testifies to His Word, and I am fully comfortable leaving that judgment to Him.

Luke 21:20 isn't a quote from God's Word?

Or can't you remember that far back?

 

[TribulationSigns]

Luke 21:20 isn't a quote from God's Word?

Ahem… like I said, you misunderstood. Let’s try this again—carefully this time.

Gospel of Matthew chapter 22 is speaking about the fall of the Old Testament congregation, exactly as I already explained. And if there were any doubt, Gospel of Matthew 21:43 confirms it plainly: “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” That took place at the Cross, when the Old Testament order came to an end and the New Testament congregation was established.

In other words, Matthew 22 is not part of the Olivet Discourse at all.


Now compare that with Gospel of Luke 21:20. That passage is part of the Olivet Discourse, and it is speaking about the fall of the New Testament congregation prior to the Second Coming, when apostasy spreads and desolation comes upon the church, the only holy place on this side of the Cross. Not your precious 70AD Temple, Israel and Roman Soliders. LOL.

So no—Luke 21:20 has nothing to do with the destruction mentioned in Matthew 22. You’re mixing two completely different contexts and then acting as though they’re the same event.

That confusion is the problem here.

So yes… the argument still stands, and the misunderstanding is still yours. The text hasn’t changed—only your interpretation needs to.

 

[covenantee]

In other words, Matthew 22 is not part of the Olivet Discourse at all.

That gnosis psychosis is getting really bad.

Provide a link to just one post in which I've claimed that Matthew 22 is part of the Olivet Discourse.

Just one post.