The fallacy of believing Jesus was talking about the temple of stones on the Mount of Olives

[Spiritual Israelite]

If you guys do not mind, please let me make a comment or two that may reveal another way to view chapter 9 and specifically the 70 years of weeks prophecy. And as with any analogy they all fail in one way or the other but I hope this makes some sense.

A Different Way to Understand the Seventy Weeks​

If you don’t mind, I’d like to suggest another way of looking at the seventy weeks prophecy in Daniel 9. Rather than working through every detail line by line, this is simply an attempt to step back and consider how the prophecy may be functioning as a whole.

The seventy weeks begin in 457 BC and unfold in a clear sequence. The first forty-nine years lead to the rebuilding of Jerusalem—its streets, walls, and Temple. This is followed by a longer period of four hundred thirty-four years, during which the people live in that restored city, studying the Scriptures and anticipating the coming of the Messiah. By the end of those 483 years, only seven years remain. Everything is moving toward completion.

Then, at that moment, the Messiah appears. Within three and a half years, He is rejected and crucified—“cut off,” as Daniel describes it. This becomes the turning point of the prophecy.

At first glance, this seems to interrupt what should have been a complete and unified fulfillment. But when we look more closely, we begin to see that two things are happening at the same time. On the one hand, the Messiah fulfills everything that was required of Him. The six purposes described in Daniel 9:24—dealing with sin, bringing reconciliation, establishing righteousness, and fulfilling prophecy—are accomplished through Him. From that perspective, nothing is lacking in His mission.

On the other hand, the prophecy is also given “for your people and your holy city.” And this is where the tension remains. The people do not receive Him. They reject the very One who fulfills the prophecy on their behalf. As a result, while the physical work to restore the Temple, the wall, etc., were completed, they still fell short of their requirements. This helps explain why the prophecy can appear both complete and yet unfinished at the same time.

This is where a broader framework may help bring clarity.

The seventy weeks can also be understood as aligning with what could be called the fourth and final Great Jubilee cycle—a 490-year period that likewise begins in 457 BC. In that sense, the timeline is not only about the Messiah’s mission, but also about the completion of a covenant cycle involving His people. But because the Messiah is rejected and crucified in the middle of the final week, this cycle does not reach its intended conclusion from the perspective of the people. The timeline reaches the midpoint of the final seven years, but the last three and a half years remain unresolved—not because the Messiah failed, but because His people did..

From this perspective, those remaining three and a half years are not assigned to the Messiah, nor to the broader Church, but to the people to whom the prophecy was originally given. His people, the Jews are the only ones capable of completing the 4th and final Great Jubilee cycle that began in 457 BC and was supposed to be completed the 70 weeks of years prophecy in 33/34 AD.

So, I guess you don't believe that the 70th week is fulfilled yet? What do you mean "supposed to be completed" exactly? God determined a 70 week (490 year) time period for the prophecy to be fulfilled. There's no indication anywhere that there would be a gap or pause in the complete fulfillment of the prophecy.

This tells us there will / must come a time when that unfinished portion is finally completed.

Drawing from passages such as Epistle to the Romans 11, where a temporary blindness over Israel is described, and from Book of Revelation, where a defined period of testimony is given, it is possible to see a future moment when that blindness is removed. In that moment:

• The people recognize the Messiah they once rejected
• Their relationship with Him is restored
• They take up a final role as witnesses

To apply Romans 11 only to the future is a mistake. Paul did not teach that there would be a mass conversion of Jews in the future when their blindness is finally removed. The blindness of some Jews was removed already in Paul's day, as Paul indicated here when talking about the Israelites who were blinded in his time...

Romans 11:11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring! 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

In verse 11 Paul refers to the Israelites who were blinded in his day and asked if they stumbled so as to fall beyond recovery and he indicated that they did not. And that's why he hoped to help bring some of them to salvation because he knew they were not blinded permanently for the rest of their lives. Their blindness occurred in order for salvation to come to the Gentiles who, in turn, would make those blinded Israelites jealous of their salvation so that they too would want to be saved the way the Gentiles were (through faith in Christ).

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That’s a fair correction. I should clarify what I meant. I agree that Mark 13:4 and Luke 21:7 record essentially the same question. Both ask when “these things” will happen and what sign will indicate they are about to take place. So I am not saying Mark and Luke ask different questions. What I meant is that Mark and Luke record the question in a more compressed form, while Matthew preserves the broader wording by including “Your coming” and “the end of the age.”

The difference I was pointing to is not so much in the wording of Mark’s and Luke’s question, but in how Luke’s account later develops the answer. Luke includes the very concrete language about Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, which strongly points to the historical destruction of Jerusalem. Matthew and Mark preserve the Daniel language of the abomination of desolation.

I believe the reason that Matthew and Mark refer to "the Daniel language of the abomination of desolation" while Luke did not is simply because Luke had a different audience. His audience was primarily Gentiles, so for him to say to them "let the reader understand" in relation to the abomination of desolation prophesied by Daniel wouldn't have made any sense. So, he spelled it out for them what the abomination of desolation related to, which was the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem.

So yes, Mark and Luke ask essentially the same thing. My point is simply that the Gospel accounts do not all develop the answer with the same level of detail or the same emphasis. Matthew gives the broader question, Mark gives a compressed version, and Luke makes the physical Jerusalem element especially clear.

Yes, all 3 accounts clearly vary in the amount of details and their emphasis in each, though I certainly believe that each account contains Jesus's answers to all of the questions the disciples asked (whether it was 2 or 3 questions) even though some people deny that.

Their question about “Your coming” shows they are trying to understand how Jesus’ role fits into what He just said. This is so confusing to them.

Yes, I'm sure they were shocked and confused after He told them that their beloved temple would be destroyed, but I don't know what you mean exactly by what you're saying here. Are you saying they were wondering if His second coming would occur in conjunction with the destruction of the temple and were wanting to know if that would be the case?

I agree that the disciples do ask a clearly structured question in Matthew 24:3. They are not speaking randomly or without order. The question itself is straightforward. What I was trying to suggest is not that their question is unclear, but that they may not fully distinguish how the events they are asking about relate to one another in time. They have just heard that the Temple will be destroyed, and in the same question they also ask about Your coming and the end of the age. That suggests they are linking these things together in their thinking, even if those events are not necessarily identical or occurring at the same moment.

I would agree that they probably would have assumed at that time that His coming and the end of the age would coincide with the destruction of the temple because of how much reverence they had for the temple. In their minds, it surely would have to be the end of the age if the temple was destroyed. I can see how they would assume that everything would be destroyed at the same time rather than it just being a local event.

I’m not separating Christ’s coming from the end of the age.

Okay, that's good. With that being the case, I'm not sure why you would see the question about His coming and the end of the age as two different questions. If His coming is at the end of the age then that would mean any question about His coming is also a question about the end of the age.

My point is just that in Matthew 24:3, the disciples use two different phrases—“Your coming” and “the end of the age.” That shows they’re asking about more than one aspect, even if those aspects ultimately come together.

Now you lost me again. If His coming occurs at the end of the age, which I think you agree that it does, then how is "His coming" a different aspect from "the end of the age"?

So the real issue isn’t whether those events are connected. It’s whether everything in the passage should be limited to that one final moment. Since parts of Jesus’ answer clearly refer to things like the Temple’s destruction, it seems He is addressing more than one time frame, not just the end of the age.

Agree.

Certainly apoligize for the confusion, I can see the way it was presented could indeed raise questions. Thanks again.

No problem. Thanks for taking the time to clarify what you meant.

 

[CTK]

When you look at what the text actually says, you can see that neither Daniel 12:1 nor Matthew 24:21 refer to a time of tribulation greater in scope than any time of tribulation before or after it. How can that even be possible in light of the flood in Noah's day? How can any tribulation be greater in scope than that, right?

Daniel 12:1 “At that time Michael shall stand up, The great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people; And there shall be a time of trouble, Such as never was since there was a nation, Even to that time. And at that time your people shall be delivered, Every one who is found written in the book.

Matthew 24:21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be.

I fully understand why people assume that these two verses are speaking of the same tribulation. But, I think it was a common figure of speech back then to say that a significant event was "such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be.". That doesn't mean every time that figure of speech was used in relation to an event then it meant that it had to always refer to the same event.

And, again, neither verse refers to tribulation greater in scope than any tribulation before or after it. That's what people like @Davidpt think, but that is not the case. They both refer to tribulation that would be unlike any tribulation before or after it. So, a local great tribulation can be unlike any other tribulation that ever occurred anywhere before or since. The great tribulation in 70 AD can be described that way. There has never been a great tribulation like what happened in Judea and Jerusalem in 70 AD anywhere else before or since. So, I believe that is what Jesus was talking about in Matthew 24:21 and I know you agree.

But, I believe Daniel 12:1 has a different context. Based on what is written in Daniel 12:2, that tribulation will occur in conjunction with the resurrection of the dead and the resurrection of the dead has not yet occurred and will occur when Jesus returns in the future (1 Cor 15:22-23, 1 Thess 4:14-17, etc.). I know you disagree and you think Daniel 12:1 and Matthew 24:21 refer to the same tribulation that occurred in 70 AD, but what are your thoughts on what I'm saying about the verses not referring to the scope of great tribulation, but rather referring to tribulation unlike any other before or after?

I think Matthew 24:21 may have a deeper connection to Daniel than simply the physical destruction of Jerusalem alone. The destruction of the Temple in 70 AD was horrific, but the deeper tragedy began earlier: Israel rejected and crucified her Messiah. That act was not merely another sin in Israel’s history. It was the rejection of the very One sent to restore the covenant relationship. From that perspective, the “great tribulation” can be understood in two connected layers. First, there is the spiritual and covenantal desolation that begins when the Messiah is rejected and “cut off.” The relationship between God and His people enters a period of desolation over 2000 years that is unlike anything Israel had experienced before. Second, that spiritual rupture later unfolds visibly in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.
So I would not separate the cross from 70 AD, but I also would not reduce Matthew 24:21 to one physical event only. The crucifixion is the covenantal cause; the fall of Jerusalem is the historical consequence.

At the same time, when we look at Daniel 12:1, the language seems to move beyond that first-century setting. It speaks of a time of trouble connected with final deliverance and is immediately followed by resurrection in verse 2. That places it within an end-of-time framework. So it may be that we are seeing a pattern rather than a single isolated event:

• A covenantal crisis (the rejection and crucifixion of the Messiah - Matthew)
• A historical judgment (the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple - Matthew)
• And a final crisis and deliverance (as described in Daniel 12)

Each can be described as “unlike any other,” not because they are identical events, but because each is unique within its own context. That might explain why similar language is used without requiring that every passage refer to the exact same moment. In my study of Daniel there is a significant departure for the definition or finding of the AOD from "today's accepted interpretation (s)" (for there is no consensus even among the scholars). Consequently, the crucifixion which causes God to turn His face from His people does not seem to fall short of the comment, "such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be.” The one speaks to the most horrific event in mankind - and of course, it will never happen again, while Daniel is also speaking about an "end time" event that will never happen again.

 

[Davidpt]

There is no indication in the text anywhere to suggest that the six things listed had to be fulfilled in the order they are listed. That comes only from your imagination.

LOL. For example, You criticize @Douggg for having the 7th trumpet happen during the 5th trumpet, or something along those lines, and here you are doing something similar. You have the last thing in the list being the first thing that is fulfilled. To prove how absurd that is, why not put this as the first thing in the list that gets fulfilled, or the 2nd thing that does---and to seal up the vision and prophecy? Imagine that being fulfilled before anything else in the list is fulfilled. It is listed towards the end of the list for a reason. In order to prevent anyone from arriving at an absurd conclusion concerning it, that it doesn't get fulfilled first or maybe 2nd, followed by those other things in the list.

And guess what verse 24 actually says? It says 70 weeks are determined to finish everything. It does not say 69 and 1/2 weeks are determined to finish everything. So, until every single thing listed in verse 24 is met, and that until every single thing recorded in verses 25-27 are met, this can't happen in the meantime---and to seal up the vision and prophecy. And like I have been arguing, the fact everything recorded in verses 26-27 involves prophecy, it obviously includes the fulfilling of every single word in all of those verses. IOW, one can't cherry pick what it includes and doesn't include. It includes every single word in all of those verses, period, nothing to debate.

In verse 27 it mentions a consummation.

consummation
kalah
kaw-law'
from 'kalah' (3615); a completion; adverb, completely; also destruction:--altogether, (be, utterly) consume(-d), consummation(-ption), was determined, (full, utter) end, riddance.


In 70 AD a full end did not come to everything. A full end came to that of the temple. But a full end certainly didn't come to that of the city, the fact the city in question is once again back on the map as we speak. Yet verse 26 involves both a city and temple, and not just a temple only. Therefore, 70 AD is not the fulfillment of these things. But even if it was, 70 AD would still have to be fulfilled before this can be fulfilled---and to seal up the vision and prophecy---since it is clearly, undeniably, connected with the vision and the prophecy. Or is one going to argue nonsense instead, brought about by doctrinal bias obviously, that none of that is a vision nor a prophecy in any way shape or form?

and to seal up the vision and prophecy--and once that is fulfilled, it means the 70 weeks are then in the past, entirely fulfilled. Meaning the 70 weeks involving every single word written within verses 24-27, and not nonsense like the following instead. Only some of those words written, not all of those words written.

 

[CTK]

So, I guess you don't believe that the 70th week is fulfilled yet? What do you mean "supposed to be completed" exactly? God determined a 70 week (490 year) time period for the prophecy to be fulfilled. There's no indication anywhere that there would be a gap or pause in the complete fulfillment of the prophecy.

Of course I believe the 70 weeks of years prophecy has been fulfilled - completely by the Messiah. All of 9:24 was fulfilled at His coming. The 4th and final Great Jubilee cycle, which from a time perspective, runs parallel to the prophecy is unfinished because of their rejection and crucifixion of their Messiah. Same exact timeline but two separate elements to be fulfilled - the prophecy and the 4th Great Jubilee.

To apply Romans 11 only to the future is a mistake. Paul did not teach that there would be a mass conversion of Jews in the future when their blindness is finally removed. The blindness of some Jews was removed already in Paul's day, as Paul indicated here when talking about the Israelites who were blinded in his time...

Romans 11:11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring! 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

In verse 11 Paul refers to the Israelites who were blinded in his day and asked if they stumbled so as to fall beyond recovery and he indicated that they did not. And that's why he hoped to help bring some of them to salvation because he knew they were not blinded permanently for the rest of their lives. Their blindness occurred in order for salvation to come to the Gentiles who, in turn, would make those blinded Israelites jealous of their salvation so that they too would want to be saved the way the Gentiles were (through faith in Christ).

I certainly agree with you that Paul clearly teaches that some Jews in his own day were coming out of blindness. That’s why he says he hopes to “save some of them” and provoke them to jealousy. So I don’t think Romans 11 can be read as only future. At the same time, Paul doesn’t stop there. A few verses later he says that a partial hardening has come upon Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in (Romans 11:25). That word “until” suggests something ongoing in his time that has not yet reached its conclusion. He also speaks about a future “full inclusion” (v.12) and contrasts “some” being saved now with something greater still to come. So it seems like he’s describing a pattern:

• In his own time: some Jews are coming to faith
• Over time: this continues as Gentiles come in
• And ultimately: there is a larger turning or restoration still ahead

So I don’t see it as either present or future—it looks like both, howecver, to me, there is a greater emphasis or focus on the end times. The blindness is not total, and it is not permanent, but it is also not fully removed yet in Paul’s day. That’s why I think Romans 11 works well as a bridge. It explains what was already happening in Paul’s time, while also pointing forward to a more complete resolution that had not yet taken place.

 

[CTK]

His audience was primarily Gentiles, so for him to say to them "let the reader understand" in relation to the abomination of desolation prophesied by Daniel wouldn't have made any sense. So, he spelled it out for them what the abomination of desolation related to, which was the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem.

Greatly appreciate your thoughts and responses.... I hope that everyone within this forum that is interested in Daniel takes advantage of them. Now, if you do not mind, I will do a cut / paste that might give you more to consider regarding the 3 separate verses in Matthew, Mark and Luke as they relate to Daniel... just consider please as they have been included in the commentary. Thanks.


Part 1


Partial commentary found in Daniel 9:27:

1. the "abomination that causes desolation

Among the many interpretations offered, most focus on the physical destruction of the Temple—whether in 70 AD by the Romans, during the desecration by Antiochus Epiphanes two centuries earlier, or in a theorized future third Temple expected to be ruined during an end-time tribulation. While these perspectives attempt to connect historical or future events to Daniel’s prophecy, they often miss the deeper covenant meaning behind the phrase “the abomination that causes desolation.” Daniel 9:24–27 is not a prophecy about a building. It is a prophecy about the Messiah, the covenant, and what follows when the Messiah is rejected.

The Temple was sacred because it represented the presence of God among His people. But it was also a shadow—an earthly pattern pointing to a greater reality. If the Messiah is the true fulfillment of that reality, then the greatest desecration imaginable would not be the fall of stones, but the rejection of the One to whom those stones testified. In that light, the “abomination” reaches its deepest meaning at the cross. The crucifixion of Jesus Christ was not merely a moment of sorrow; it was covenant betrayal of the highest order—the Holy One of Israel rejected and “cut off” in the very time Daniel said He would come. No military campaign, no political upheaval, and no destruction of masonry can match the spiritual gravity of that act.

This is why the desolation that follows cannot be reduced to the burning of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD. That destruction was real and devastating, but it was the consequence, not the cause, of desolation. The true desolation is spiritual: the severing of communion that occurs when the Messiah is rejected—the loss of covenant nearness, the leaving of the “house” empty. Only later does that desolation become visible in history, when the city falls. The Gospels themselves invite the reader to understand Daniel’s language through the words of Jesus. Three passages speak directly to Daniel 9:27e:

“Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (whoever reads, let him understand) …” (Matthew 24:15)​

​

“But when you see the abomination of desolation… standing whereStanding where it ought not (let the reader understand) …” (Mark 13:14)​

​

“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near.” (Luke 21:20)​

All three writers are preserving the same discourse from Jesus, yet each presents it with distinct emphasis and nuance. Luke omits the phrase “abomination of desolation” and speaks directly to the visible realities that would soon confront Jerusalem. Matthew and Mark retain the phrase and explicitly identify Daniel as the prophetic source. These differences are not contradictions. They are deliberate distinctions shaped to communicate unique messages to different audiences—and taken together, they help confirm both the timing and the identity of what Daniel foretold.

A Daniel 9:25–26 Lens: The Prince and the One “Cut Off”

Before Matthew and Mark even differ in phrasing (“holy place” versus “where it ought not”), they agree on something crucial: Jesus says this is what was “spoken of by Daniel the prophet.” That invitation is not incidental. It directs the reader back to the heart of Daniel 9, where the Messiah is presented in two complementary portraits that function like a hinge in the prophecy. In Daniel 9:25, the Messiah is revealed as the Prince—the One who comes with covenant authority, restoration, and purpose. This is the Messiah in His rightful place, arriving exactly on time within the seventy-weeks framework. Then in Daniel 9:26, the same Messiah is revealed in the shock of the Gospel: He will be “cut off, but not for Himself.” This is the Messiah in unjust suffering—rejected, condemned, sacrificed, not for His own sin, but for others.

Daniel already holds these two portraits together: the Prince who comes to restore (v.25), and the Messiah who is cut off to redeem (v.26). The Gospels do not invent this tension—they unveil its fulfillment. This is why Matthew can place the Messiah where a King and Priest belongs, while Mark places the Messiah where He ought not be—and yet both remain true and converge on the same event: the cross.

Matthew: Standing in the Holy Place

In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus is presented as the Messianic King and covenant High Priest, fulfilling the Law and the Prophets and establishing the long-anticipated kingdom of heaven. Matthew writes primarily to a Jewish audience and meticulously links Jesus to the Hebrew Scriptures—His royal lineage from David, His legal authority as heir to the throne, and His covenant mission as the fulfillment of what God promised. Therefore, when Jesus speaks of the abomination “standing in the holy place” (Matthew 24:15), the phrase is critical because it places the Messiah precisely where a King and a Priest would be found standing. The “holy place” evokes far more than geography. It represents covenant space—the sphere where God’s presence was honored, where priestly mediation occurred, and where Israel’s worship was centered. If Jesus is the true Temple—the ultimate dwelling of God among His people—then the greatest abomination is not the destruction of a building, but the crucifixion of the Son of God: the rejection of the One in whom God’s fullness dwells. Matthew’s own Gospel provides an interpretive key to what “desolation” means at its deepest level. Jesus laments over Jerusalem:

“See! Your house is left to you desolate.” (Matthew 23:38)​

This is not merely a prediction of coming ruins. It is the language of severed communion—a sanctuary emptied because its rightful inhabitant has been rejected. And when Jesus dies, Matthew records a decisive sign:

“The veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.” (Matthew 27:51)​

The tearing of the veil signals that the old order has reached its fulfillment point. What the Temple signified is now centered in the Messiah. When He is rejected, the “house” is left desolate. The Roman siege that follows is a historical judgment, but Matthew presses the deeper cause: the abomination has already occurred in covenant terms, and the desolation begins spiritually before it becomes visible in history.
Matthew also preserves an unusually direct summons placed right in the middle of Jesus’ warning: “whoever reads, let him understand.” Whether spoken by Jesus in that moment or preserved by Matthew as an inspired prompt, the effect is the same—the reader is being commanded to slow down, return to Daniel, and recognize that understanding will not be automatic.

Mark: Standing Where He Ought Not

Mark preserves the same warning, but with different phrasing:

“Standing where it ought not…” (Mark 13:14)​

Mark does not mention the “holy place.” Instead, he speaks morally and symbolically. In Mark’s Gospel, Jesus is portrayed as the Suffering Servant—the One who came “to give His life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). A servant does not belong in the sanctuary as a ruler. And the Holy One does not belong at a Roman execution site as a criminal. The cross itself is the place where He “ought not” to be—and yet it is precisely there that redemption is accomplished.

Mark’s Passion narrative highlights this inversion: the innocent Servant mocked, humiliated, abandoned, and treated as cursed. In Mark’s framing, the abomination is the moment humanity places the Servant of God where He does not belong—on the cross, bearing the sins of the world. It is not only Israel’s betrayal but also Rome’s injustice: the Son of God condemned and executed as though guilty. Jew and Gentile alike stand implicated in the world’s rejection of its only Savior.

And here the contrast becomes decisive: Matthew places the Messiah where a King and Priest belongs— “in the holy place.” Mark places the Messiah where He ought not be—on the cross, the place of shame. Both are true, and together they point to one fulfillment: the Messiah rejected and “cut off,” not for Himself.

 

[CTK]

I believe the reason that Matthew and Mark refer to "the Daniel language of the abomination of desolation" while Luke did not is simply because Luke had a different audience. His audience was primarily Gentiles, so for him to say to them "let the reader understand" in relation to the abomination of desolation prophesied by Daniel wouldn't have made any sense. So, he spelled it out for them what the abomination of desolation related to, which was the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem.


Yes, all 3 accounts clearly vary in the amount of details and their emphasis in each, though I certainly believe that each account contains Jesus's answers to all of the questions the disciples asked (whether it was 2 or 3 questions) even though some people deny that.


Yes, I'm sure they were shocked and confused after He told them that their beloved temple would be destroyed, but I don't know what you mean exactly by what you're saying here. Are you saying they were wondering if His second coming would occur in conjunction with the destruction of the temple and were wanting to know if that would be the case?


I would agree that they probably would have assumed at that time that His coming and the end of the age would coincide with the destruction of the temple because of how much reverence they had for the temple. In their minds, it surely would have to be the end of the age if the temple was destroyed. I can see how they would assume that everything would be destroyed at the same time rather than it just being a local event.


Okay, that's good. With that being the case, I'm not sure why you would see the question about His coming and the end of the age as two different questions. If His coming is at the end of the age then that would mean any question about His coming is also a question about the end of the age.


Now you lost me again. If His coming occurs at the end of the age, which I think you agree that it does, then how is "His coming" a different aspect from "the end of the age"?


Agree.


No problem. Thanks for taking the time to clarify what you meant.

Part 2

Partial commentary found in Daniel 9:27:

Luke: Jerusalem Surrounded—Desolation Made Visible

Luke takes yet another path. He does not cite Daniel by name, nor does he use sanctuary language (“holy place”) or symbolic language (“where it ought not”). Instead, he provides the visible historical sign:

“When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies…” (Luke 21:20)​

Luke’s emphasis is direct. He shows how desolation becomes outwardly evident. The siege is the visible manifestation of a spiritual rupture already underway. Jerusalem’s destruction in 70 AD was not merely a political or military disaster; it was the earthly reflection of what happens when the presence of God is refused and covenant communion collapses. Luke also widens the horizon beyond Israel. His Gospel moves beyond Jewish prophetic framing to underscore the global consequence of rejecting the Son of Man. The desolation is not only Jerusalem’s; it is the human condition wherever Christ is refused. Yet Luke’s broader emphasis also magnifies hope: even as the world rejects its Creator, mercy is offered. Jesus gives Himself to save mankind from the deepest desolation of all—separation from God.

And this is where the prophecy ultimately presses the reader. The desolation that begins with rejecting the Messiah is real and enduring—but it is not forever. The time of spiritual distance will end. The Messiah will return—not as the rejected King, not as the suffering Servant, but as the victorious Son of Man, restoring what was lost. The question is not whether the prophecy will be fulfilled, but whether we will be ready when desolation gives way to restoration and the King is finally received.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I think Matthew 24:21 may have a deeper connection to Daniel than simply the physical destruction of Jerusalem alone. The destruction of the Temple in 70 AD was horrific, but the deeper tragedy began earlier: Israel rejected and crucified her Messiah. That act was not merely another sin in Israel’s history. It was the rejection of the very One sent to restore the covenant relationship. From that perspective, the “great tribulation” can be understood in two connected layers. First, there is the spiritual and covenantal desolation that begins when the Messiah is rejected and “cut off.” The relationship between God and His people enters a period of desolation over 2000 years that is unlike anything Israel had experienced before. Second, that spiritual rupture later unfolds visibly in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.
So I would not separate the cross from 70 AD, but I also would not reduce Matthew 24:21 to one physical event only. The crucifixion is the covenantal cause; the fall of Jerusalem is the historical consequence.

The rejection of Christ and crucifixion of Christ by the Jews is the reason why the destruction and desolation of Jerusalem occurred in 70 AD, but Jesus said that when they saw something happen then they would need to flee to the mountains. That's not a reference to His death, but rather a reference to seeing something to indicate that "the city and the sanctuary" (Daniel 9:26) was about to be destroyed. As Luke put it, when they would see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then they would know it was time to flee to the mountains.

At the same time, when we look at Daniel 12:1, the language seems to move beyond that first-century setting. It speaks of a time of trouble connected with final deliverance and is immediately followed by resurrection in verse 2. That places it within an end-of-time framework.

Agree. The resurrection of the dead has clearly not yet occurred, so it's not reasonable to think that Daniel 12:1-2 is fulfilled.

So it may be that we are seeing a pattern rather than a single isolated event:

• A covenantal crisis (the rejection and crucifixion of the Messiah - Matthew)
• A historical judgment (the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple - Matthew)
• And a final crisis and deliverance (as described in Daniel 12)

Each can be described as “unlike any other,” not because they are identical events, but because each is unique within its own context. That might explain why similar language is used without requiring that every passage refer to the exact same moment.

I agree.

In my study of Daniel there is a significant departure for the definition or finding of the AOD from "today's accepted interpretation (s)" (for there is no consensus even among the scholars). Consequently, the crucifixion which causes God to turn His face from His people does not seem to fall short of the comment, "such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be.” The one speaks to the most horrific event in mankind - and of course, it will never happen again, while Daniel is also speaking about an "end time" event that will never happen again.

While it can be said that Christ's crucifixion was an abomination that caused desolation, I just can't agree that Jesus was referring to that in the Olivet Discourse because no one fled to the mountains after seeing Christ's crucifixion. But, our views are not that far apart on this, overall, it seems.

 

[CTK]

LOL. For example, You criticize @Douggg for having the 7th trumpet happen during the 5th trumpet, or something along those lines, and here you are doing something similar. You have the last thing in the list being the first thing that is fulfilled. To prove how absurd that is, why not put this as the first thing in the list that gets fulfilled, or the 2nd thing that does---and to seal up the vision and prophecy? Imagine that being fulfilled before anything else in the list is fulfilled. It is listed towards the end of the list for a reason. In order to prevent anyone from arriving at an absurd conclusion concerning it, that it doesn't get fulfilled first or maybe 2nd, followed by those other things in the list.

And guess what verse 24 actually says? It says 70 weeks are determined to finish everything. It does not say 69 and 1/2 weeks are determined to finish everything. So, until every single thing listed in verse 24 is met, and that until every single thing recorded in verses 25-27 are met, this can't happen in the meantime---and to seal up the vision and prophecy. And like I have been arguing, the fact everything recorded in verses 26-27 involves prophecy, it obviously includes the fulfilling of every single word in all of those verses. IOW, one can't cherry pick what it includes and doesn't include. It includes every single word in all of those verses, period, nothing to debate.

In verse 27 it mentions a consummation.

consummation
kalah
kaw-law'
from 'kalah' (3615); a completion; adverb, completely; also destruction:--altogether, (be, utterly) consume(-d), consummation(-ption), was determined, (full, utter) end, riddance.


In 70 AD a full end did not come to everything. A full end came to that of the temple. But a full end certainly didn't come to that of the city, the fact the city in question is once again back on the map as we speak. Yet verse 26 involves both a city and temple, and not just a temple only. Therefore, 70 AD is not the fulfillment of these things. But even if it was, 70 AD would still have to be fulfilled before this can be fulfilled---and to seal up the vision and prophecy---since it is clearly, undeniably, connected with the vision and the prophecy. Or is one going to argue nonsense instead, brought about by doctrinal bias obviously, that none of that is a vision nor a prophecy in any way shape or form?

and to seal up the vision and prophecy--and once that is fulfilled, it means the 70 weeks are then in the past, entirely fulfilled. Meaning the 70 weeks involving every single word written within verses 24-27, and not nonsense like the following instead. Only some of those words written, not all of those words written.

David, I don't think we were able to continue our discussion on the 10 elements which may be causing so much confusion in chapter 9. And I think you will agree, there is not just one scholarly interpretation out there. There are more than a few quoted scholars that share a very different set of interpretations for much of chapter 9. If you agree, I would like to start to post the narratives associated with chapter 27 only as they speak to each of the important elements within 9:27. It does not mean you have to accept any of these views or interpretations but I do believe it is structured and perhaps reasonable and might give you something to consider. If you would like, I could begin with the opening for 9:27 and we can discuss / disagree, etc., before we move on to the next narrative. If you rather not, no problem at all. Thanks.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Greatly appreciate your thoughts and responses.... I hope that everyone within this forum that is interested in Daniel takes advantage of them. Now, if you do not mind, I will do a cut / paste that might give you more to consider regarding the 3 separate verses in Matthew, Mark and Luke as they relate to Daniel... just consider please as they have been included in the commentary. Thanks.

That's fine, I guess, but it would be nice if you would comment specifically on what you think about what I said instead of only cutting and pasting from your own commentary on Daniel.

 

[CTK]

The rejection of Christ and crucifixion of Christ by the Jews is the reason why the destruction and desolation of Jerusalem occurred in 70 AD, but Jesus said that when they saw something happen then they would need to flee to the mountains. That's not a reference to His death, but rather a reference to seeing something to indicate that "the city and the sanctuary" (Daniel 9:26) was about to be destroyed. As Luke put it, when they would see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then they would know it was time to flee to the mountains.


Agree. The resurrection of the dead has clearly not yet occurred, so it's not reasonable to think that Daniel 12:1-2 is fulfilled.


I agree.


While it can be said that Christ's crucifixion was an abomination that caused desolation, I just can't agree that Jesus was referring to that in the Olivet Discourse because no one fled to the mountains after seeing Christ's crucifixion. But, our views are not that far apart on this, overall, it seems.

Thank you again and you are right - we agree on so much. I would ask that you might comment on the earlier post - Parts 1 and 2 which discuss the 3 verses and let me know your thoughs. Further, if you might need an additional level of support for why the cross is the AOD, please let me know -- it is an additional narrative that comes after the 3 discussions.

 

[CTK]

That's fine, I guess, but it would be nice if you would comment specifically on what you think about what I said instead of only cutting and pasting from your own commentary on Daniel.

I don't understand! The pasting from within my commentary is indeed my final interpretations on Daniel. Did the 3 discussions on Matthew, Mark and Luke fail to address a certain part of a question you had posed?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

LOL. For example, You criticize @Douggg for having the 7th trumpet happen during the 5th trumpet, or something along those lines, and here you are doing something similar.

LOL. What I'm doing is not similar at all. The six things listed in Daniel 9:24 are not numbered like the trumpets are. There is nothing in the text whatsoever to indicate that they had to be fulfilled in the order listed. You just go out of your way to come up with nonsensical ways to try to criticize me about.

You have the last thing in the list being the first thing that is fulfilled.

So what? Show me where it indicates that the six things had to be fulfilled in order. Good luck. All you ever have to offer is ridiculous arguments like this. It makes it very difficult to take you seriously.

To prove how absurd that is, why not put this as the first thing in the list that gets fulfilled, or the 2nd thing that does---and to seal up the vision and prophecy? Imagine that being fulfilled before anything else in the list is fulfilled. It is listed towards the end of the list for a reason.

LOL! With the way you think, it should be listed as the very last thing, but it's not. So, there is no consistency with how you look at this.

In order to prevent anyone from arriving at an absurd conclusion concerning it, that it doesn't get fulfilled first or maybe 2nd, followed by those other things in the list.

You understand that to be talking about the entire prophecy being fulfilled with, right? So, how can anything related to the prophecy be fulfilled after that? You have the anointing of the most holy occurring after the prophecy has been sealed and fulfilled.

And guess what verse 24 actually says? It says 70 weeks are determined to finish everything. It does not say 69 and 1/2 weeks are determined to finish everything.

Hello? This disproves your view, not mine! What that means is that a 70 week (490 year) time period was determined for the prophecy to be fulfilled. You have turned it into at least around a 2,500 year time period for it to be fulfilled instead.

So, until every single thing listed in verse 24 is met, and that until every single thing recorded in verses 25-27 are met, this can't happen in the meantime---and to seal up the vision and prophecy.

LOL. You are not even thinking here. With your understanding of what it means to "seal up the vision and prophecy", it doesn't allow for the anointing of the most holy to occur because you have all six things being fulfilled in order. You have the prophecy being fulfilled after the 5th thing listed, which doesn't allow for the 6th thing listed to be fulfilled. This idea you came up with in your imagination that the six things listed had to be fulfilled in order is ridiculous and total nonsense. Give it up.

And like I have been arguing, the fact everything recorded in verses 26-27 involves prophecy, it obviously includes the fulfilling of every single word in all of those verses. IOW, one can't cherry pick what it includes and doesn't include. It includes every single word in all of those verses, period, nothing to debate.

LOL. What? You have no idea how little sense you are making. You are saying that sealing up the vision and prophecy refers to when the 70 weeks is competely fulfilled and I would agree with that. But, you also say that the six things listed have to happen in order. How can the most holy be anointed after the prophecy has been fulfilled? Also, there is NOTHING to indicate that everything in verses 26 and 27 has to occur within the 70 weeks. The destruction of the city and the sanctuary occurred because of the Messiah being cut off during the 70th week. That doesn't mean that destruction had to occur during the 70th week. That's complete nonsense. I don't know why you think you're making such a strong argument here when I find it to be extremely weak.

In verse 27 it mentions a consummation.

consummation
kalah
kaw-law'
from 'kalah' (3615); a completion; adverb, completely; also destruction:--altogether, (be, utterly) consume(-d), consummation(-ption), was determined, (full, utter) end, riddance.

Right, that's referring to the end of the city and sanctuary because of what occurred during the 70th week, not to the end of the 70th week.

In 70 AD a full end did not come to everything. A full end came to that of the temple. But a full end certainly didn't come to that of the city, the fact the city in question is once again back on the map as we speak.

Goodness gracious. You can't be for real. You keep inserting ideas into the text that aren't there. Nowhere does it talk about the annihilation of the city and the sanctuary. It refers to their destruction and the city and the sanctuary were indeed destroyed in 70 AD.

Yet verse 26 involves both a city and temple, and not just a temple only. Therefore, 70 AD is not the fulfillment of these things. But even if it was, 70 AD would still have to be fulfilled before this can be fulfilled---and to seal up the vision and prophecy---since it is clearly, undeniably, connected with the vision and the prophecy.

It's not connected with the 70 weeks. The sealing up of the vision and the prophecy relates specifically to the 70 weeks and not anything that would occur later because of what happened during the 70th week.

Or is one going to argue nonsense instead, brought about by doctrinal bias obviously, that none of that is a vision nor a prophecy in any way shape or form?

and to seal up the vision and prophecy--and once that is fulfilled, it means the 70 weeks are then in the past, entirely fulfilled. Meaning the 70 weeks involving every single word written within verses 24-27, and not nonsense like the following instead. Only some of those words written, not all of those words written.

Your way of looking at this is just completely flawed. It's unfortunate and sad to witness. But, at least you do recognize that verse 27 talks about Jesus confirming the new covenant. So, you're not a total lost cause when it comes to this particular prophecy.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Thank you again and you are right - we agree on so much. I would ask that you might comment on the earlier post - Parts 1 and 2 which discuss the 3 verses and let me know your thoughs. Further, if you might need an additional level of support for why the cross is the AOD, please let me know -- it is an additional narrative that comes after the 3 discussions.

If I get time, I might comment on those, but I'd appreciate if you would comment specifically on more of what I said. In one post you just responded with your cut and paste commentary without really addressing anything I had said specifically. I'm not really interested in having that kind of discussion where I'm the only one specifically addressing what the other is saying.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I don't understand! The pasting from within my commentary is indeed my final interpretations on Daniel. Did the 3 discussions on Matthew, Mark and Luke fail to address a certain part of a question you had posed?

I don't think it's reasonable to expect me to read all of your long posts in order to try to find your answers to my questions or how you address the points I had made. Can't you just respond directly to things I say? I'm afraid I'm not really into this kind of communication. I'm not really here to post full commentaries back and forth. Imagine if I responded to your 3 part long posts with 3 long posts of my own. That doesn't make for very good discussion. Let's try to be more succinct and address one or two things at a time.

 

[grafted branch]

When you look at what the text actually says, you can see that neither Daniel 12:1 nor Matthew 24:21 refer to a time of tribulation greater in scope than any time of tribulation before or after it. How can that even be possible in light of the flood in Noah's day? How can any tribulation be greater in scope than that, right?

Daniel 12:1 “At that time Michael shall stand up, The great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people; And there shall be a time of trouble, Such as never was since there was a nation, Even to that time. And at that time your people shall be delivered, Every one who is found written in the book.

Matthew 24:21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be.

I fully understand why people assume that these two verses are speaking of the same tribulation. But, I think it was a common figure of speech back then to say that a significant event was "such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be.". That doesn't mean every time that figure of speech was used in relation to an event then it meant that it had to always refer to the same event.

And, again, neither verse refers to tribulation greater in scope than any tribulation before or after it. That's what people like @Davidpt think, but that is not the case. They both refer to tribulation that would be unlike any tribulation before or after it. So, a local great tribulation can be unlike any other tribulation that ever occurred anywhere before or since. The great tribulation in 70 AD can be described that way. There has never been a great tribulation like what happened in Judea and Jerusalem in 70 AD anywhere else before or since. So, I believe that is what Jesus was talking about in Matthew 24:21 and I know you agree.

But, I believe Daniel 12:1 has a different context. Based on what is written in Daniel 12:2, that tribulation will occur in conjunction with the resurrection of the dead and the resurrection of the dead has not yet occurred and will occur when Jesus returns in the future (1 Cor 15:22-23, 1 Thess 4:14-17, etc.). I know you disagree and you think Daniel 12:1 and Matthew 24:21 refer to the same tribulation that occurred in 70 AD, but what are your thoughts on what I'm saying about the verses not referring to the scope of great tribulation, but rather referring to tribulation unlike any other before or after?

Yea, I agree, saying the greatest tribulation ever could be a figure of speech. The absolute greatest tribulation that ever will be in the Bible would be to die unsaved and cast into the lake of fire.

I don’t know anyone who has the GWT taking place in Matthew 24:21, so it’s a figure of speech, has to be narrowed down to a specific type of tribulation, or something else, to make sense out of it.

 

[Davidpt]

When you look at what the text actually says, you can see that neither Daniel 12:1 nor Matthew 24:21 refer to a time of tribulation greater in scope than any time of tribulation before or after it. How can that even be possible in light of the flood in Noah's day? How can any tribulation be greater in scope than that, right?

Let's work through your reasoning that the the flood itself equals tribulation rather than judgment. But the thing is, it's impossible to reason with you. And the following will undeniably prove it unless you shock me and actually agree you can't use the flood as an example no matter what. Because you still won't get it. I would almost bet on it. You are too doctrinally biased and too prideful to ever admit that you might be wrong about some of these things. Prove me wrong by agreeing you cannot use the flood as an argument, and then maybe I might quit thinking the worst about you at times.

Yet, you will likely continue using the flood as an absurd argument that a worse time of trouble preceded what even Matthew 24:21 is referring to, regardless. Not to mention, Daniel 12:1 says since there were nations. Was it not until after the flood when nations were brought about? If yes, there you go then. It's not meaning before the flood to begin with.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up

The first thing that must be asked is this. Is this meaning during tribulation or after tribulation? The next things that must be asked is this. Is this being compared to the days leading up to the flood? Or is it being compared to the flood itself? Depending on how you answer, you cannot argue that verse 10 is meaning after the tribulation, and that verse 10 is being compared to the flood itself, not the days leading up to it, then claim that the flood equals tribulation.

The flood does not equal tribulation any more than verse 10 does. Both equal judgment. Comparing Noah's flood to Matthew 24:21 in any sense, is profoundly absurd no matter how you look at it. Before the flood leading up to, there was no no time of trouble in the earth that's even greater than the one mentioned in Matthew 24:21, lol.

Don't you ever think any of these things through a little better before making all these absurd claims you often do? Tribulation is meaning before judgment, and that the flood was meaning judgment not tribulation and that 2 Peter 3:10 undeniably proves it(and guess what? I couldn't care less if you think I use that term incorrectly all the time), the fact that it is being compared to the flood itself, and that 2 Peter 3:10 is meaning after tribulation, not during it.

Because if it is meaning during it, it would obviously mean there is no such thing as post tribulation then. And besides, there was never a time of trouble leading up to the flood and you know it. But you are trying to conflate tribulation, which is meaning before judgment, with that of judgment per Noah's flood when 2 Peter 3:10 doesn't even agree with that. You are clearly one confused interpreter at times.

Yet you would have us believe that it is some of the rest of us that are confused about some of these things at times, not you. Not to mention, why, according to 2 Peter 3:10, judgment follows tribulation. But then according to your interpretation of Matthew 24:15-15, you do not have judgment following tribulation. You have tribulation equaling judgment, therefore, blatantly contradicting that 2 Peter 3:10 indicates judgment follows tribulation, and not, tribulation equals judgment. Once again, you do not think some of these things through a little better before deciding how to interpret something. Your interpretation of Matthew 24:15-21 contradicts 2 Peter 3:10, but you don't care. Maybe the way Preterists interpret those passages, there are seemingly no contradictions. But we are not talking about Preterists here. We are talking about you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Let's work through your reasoning that the the flood itself equals tribulation rather than judgment.

There's nothing to work through. God's wrath can be considered tribulation. That is a fact. Also, Matthew 24:15-21 is referring to God's wrath against the Jews for rejecting Christ. That's why He warned believers in Judea to flee to the mountains, so that they would not be affected by God's wrath.

Examples in scripture of God's wrath described as tribulation:

Romans 2:9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

2 Thessalonians 1:6 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;

Revelation 2:22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.

But the thing is, it's impossible to reason with you.

That is absolutely false, but why are you talking to me if that's the case? If you really believe that, then it makes no sense for you to talk to me at all. But, you say that just because I disagree with you. Should I say it's impossible to reason with you just because you disagree with me? Look at my discussion that I'm having with CTK. I have been reasoning with him over several posts.

And the following will undeniably prove it unless you shock me and actually agree you can't use the flood as an example no matter what. Because you still won't get it. I would almost bet on it.

If I don't agree with something you believe that doesn't mean I'm not considering it and that I can't be reasoned with.

You are too doctrinally biased and too prideful to ever admit that you might be wrong about some of these things.

Not true at all. You don't know me at all. I don't see you admitting that you might be wrong about some of these things, so I guess I will just say that you are too prideful to admit that.

Of course I could be wrong about a lot of things. I just don't believe that I'm wrong about these things we're discussing. So what? Why are you so offended by people being confident about their beliefs? You are acting as if your beliefs must be true, so why is that okay for you, but not for me?

Prove me wrong by agreeing you cannot use the flood as an argument, and then maybe I might quit thinking the worst about you at times.

LOL. So, you are obviously completely convinced that you are right about this, so does that mean I should claim that you are being doctrinally biased and prideful and can't be reasoned with about this?

Yet, you will likely continue using the flood as an absurd argument that a worse time of trouble preceded what even Matthew 24:21 is referring to, regardless.

I wonder if you will ever get to the point here instead of just rambling on and on. We'll see....

Not to mention, Daniel 12:1 says since there were nations. Was it not until after the flood when nations were brought about? If yes, there you go then. It's not meaning before the flood to begin with.

That's a fair point about Daniel 12:1, but it doesn't say that in Matthew 24:21.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up

The first thing that must be asked is this. Is this meaning during tribulation or after tribulation?

That is describing tribulation, so I guess that means during tribulation. Why do you ask?

The next things that must be asked is this.

So, you moved on to another question without explaining why you asked the first question. Why?

Is this being compared to the days leading up to the flood?

No.

Or is it being compared to the flood itself?

To the flood itself.

Depending on how you answer, you cannot argue that verse 10 is meaning after the tribulation, and that verse 10 is being compared to the flood itself, not the days leading up to it, then claim that the flood equals tribulation.

I don't argue that verse 10 means after the tribulation described in verse 10. That would be stupid, obviously. But, it will occur after spiritual tribulation like Paul described in 2 Thessalonians 2. Your problem is that you don't understand that there is more than one type of tribulation. Tribulation can be in the form of persecution and spiritual deception and such or it can be in the form of God's wrath.

Do you deny that the flood was tribulation? It most certainly was. As I showed above, God's wrath can be described as tribulation.

The flood does not equal tribulation any more than verse 10 does.

Yes, it does. Why do you deny that God's wrath can be tribulation when scripture describes His wrath as tribulation multiple times?

Both equal judgment. Comparing Noah's flood to Matthew 24:21 in any sense, is profoundly absurd no matter how you look at it.

Wrong. Your way of thinking is profoundly absurd because you don't recognize that God's wrath can be considered tribulation. How can you not know that?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Before the flood leading up to, there was no no time of trouble in the earth that's even greater than the one mentioned in Matthew 24:21, lol.

LOL! What a ridiculous argument. The flood itself was tribulation and that is what I'm comparing to Matthew 24:21, not the time leading up to that Good grief, man. Think. Who was saying that the time before the flood was unlike any other tribulation like the one mentioned in Matthew 24:21? Not me. You once again, as you have done repeatedly for many years, have wasted your time making a straw man argument.

Don't you ever think any of these things through a little better before making all these absurd claims you often do?

LOL! Don't you ever try to improve your terrible reading comprehension skills? It's your straw man making absurd claims, not me. It's truly astounding how much you can't comprehend what others believe. It's mind boggling to think about how much time you've wasted making straw man arguments over the years.

Tribulation is meaning before judgment, and that the flood was meaning judgment not tribulation and that 2 Peter 3:10 undeniably proves it(and guess what?

So, do you deny that God's wrath can be called tribulation even though there are scriptures that refer to God's wrath as tribulation?

I couldn't care less if you think I use that term incorrectly all the time), the fact that it is being compared to the flood itself, and that 2 Peter 3:10 is meaning after tribulation, not during it.

LOL. You couldn't care less if you make up your own definitions for words. Okay then. You be you.

Because if it is meaning during it, it would obviously mean there is no such thing as post tribulation then.

Please explain to me what made you decide that tribulation can't ever refer to God's wrath? I'd love to know. Seriously. Were you unaware of the verses which describe His wrath as tribulation? Do you think that what happened in 70 AD was not great tribulation?

And besides, there was never a time of trouble leading up to the flood and you know it.

LOL!!! When did I say otherwise? Never. You simply do not possess the necessary reading comprehension skills to be able to debate others about scripture. You have no clue as to what other people believe and, yet, you still try to refute what other people believe. But, you can't refute things that you don't even understand.

But you are trying to conflate tribulation, which is meaning before judgment, with that of judgment per Noah's flood when 2 Peter 3:10 doesn't even agree with that. You are clearly one confused interpreter at times.

You can't be more confused than denying that God's wrath can be considered tribulation and that spiritual tribulation in the form of persecution and/or deception is not the only type of tribulation. The tribulation described in Matthew 24:15-21 is God's wrath, as the parallel passage of Luke 21:20-24 indicates.

Yet you would have us believe that it is some of the rest of us that are confused about some of these things at times, not you.

You are definitely confused. Not just about scripture, but about what I actually believe. You are so confused that you think I claim that the time before the flood was greater than any time of tribulation in history. LOL. You can't be any more confused than that.

Not to mention, why, according to 2 Peter 3:10, judgment follows tribulation.

You sure do like to repeat yourself, don't you? In that case, tribulation in the form of God's wrath follows spiritual tribulation. Your inability to understand the simple fact that there is more than one type of tribulation is a big reason as to why you are so confused.

But then according to your interpretation of Matthew 24:15-15, you do not have judgment following tribulation.

LOL. You continue to crack me up with your ludicrous comments. In Matthew 24:15-21, it describes tribulation in the form of God's wrath. It is both tribulation and judgment. The way you think is so wacky, it just boggles my mind.

You have tribulation equaling judgment, therefore, blatantly contradicting that 2 Peter 3:10 indicates judgment follows tribulation, and not, tribulation equals judgment.

How many times have you made this same point in your post? I lost count. 2 Peter 3:10-12 described both tribulation and judgment. Again, your failure to understand that God's wrath can be decribed as tribulation has left you utterly confused.

Once again, you do not think some of these things through a little better before deciding how to interpret something.

Once again, you repeat something you've already said. You are by far the most repetitive person I've ever come across on these forums.

Your interpretation of Matthew 24:15-21 contradicts 2 Peter 3:10, but you don't care.

You continue to make a complete fool of yourself. You can disagree with me all you want, but to claim I don't care about how I'm interpreting scripture? That's total nonsense and you know it. Both Matthew 24:15-21 and 2 Peter 3:10-12 describe tribulation in the form of God's wrath.

Maybe the way Preterists interpret those passages, there are seemingly no contradictions. But we are not talking about Preterists here. We are talking about you.

We need to talk about what are you going to do to work on improving your reading comprehension skills and what are you going to do to get yourself to stop denying that God's wrath can be described as tribulation.

 

[Davidpt]

David, I don't think we were able to continue our discussion on the 10 elements which may be causing so much confusion in chapter 9. And I think you will agree, there is not just one scholarly interpretation out there. There are more than a few quoted scholars that share a very different set of interpretations for much of chapter 9. If you agree, I would like to start to post the narratives associated with chapter 27 only as they speak to each of the important elements within 9:27. It does not mean you have to accept any of these views or interpretations but I do believe it is structured and perhaps reasonable and might give you something to consider. If you would like, I could begin with the opening for 9:27 and we can discuss / disagree, etc., before we move on to the next narrative. If you rather not, no problem at all. Thanks.

We can do that. But since I don't have any disputes involving the first part, that the Messiah fulfills the midst of the week, I would rather spend more time focusing on how that verse ends, and if the vision and prophecy can stop, meaning the 70 weeks are fulfilled in it's entirety, before that part is even fulfilled first. In my mind consummation equals the 70 weeks concluding. And no way do I think that happened in 70 AD. Yes I realize, those who are arguing for no gaps, are not proposing the 70 weeks finished in 70 AD. They are proposing they finished 40 years earlier. But even so, if the 70 weeks can't finish until the last half of verse 27 is fulfilled first, thus a gap is implied, it makes far more sense for this gap to lead to the final days of this age, then end the vision and prophecy there, than it does for it to lead to 70 AD, then end the vision and prophecy there instead.