The Conundrum of Zechariah Ch. 14

[Spiritual Israelite]

Prior to Mat 24:31 what happens to the ELECT who took the mark ?

Once again, you failed to answer my question first before asking another question. I asked you why you asked me if I "believe the Mark of the Beast is active in Matt 24:31?". I'd like to have some idea of where you're going with this so that I can determine if this is worth my time to continue this discussion or not.

 

[PeterAndroz]

Once again, you failed to answer my question first before asking another question. I asked you why you asked me if I "believe the Mark of the Beast is active in Matt 24:31?". I'd like to have some idea of where you're going with this so that I can determine if this is worth my time to continue this discussion or not.

You are helping me to learn where I am wrong so these questions are part of that process
Are Eph 4:30 part of the Matt 24:31 ELECT ?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It’s not really “that easy,” though. Saying people simply “can’t grasp it” assumes the interpretation is already settled and self-evident, when in reality that’s exactly what’s being debated.

The issue isn’t comprehension—it’s whether your conclusion actually follows from the text. I understand what you’re trying to argue,

Do you really? It sure hasn't seemed like it. It's clear that rwb wasn't understanding what he was saying, at least.

As for Si's another false assumption. You need to ask SI where in Scripture is it stated that God gave “40 years of probation” specifically to the Jews regarding temple sacrifices before judging them in AD 70? LOL!!!

Do you need him to talk for you just like you feel the need to talk for rwb? Are you afraid to ask me that question directly? What is so funny about this? Do you not think that what happened in 70 AD was God's wrath and judgment against the Jews for their rejection of Christ? Jesus Himself indicated as such.

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

This is talking about when the gospel first was preached to the Jews. The king represents God the Father and his son obviously represents Jesus Christ. The description of the king sending out his armies to destroy those who rejected his son and to burn up their city represents what happened in 70 AD when the city of Jerusalem was destroyed (much of it was set on fire) and many of the unbelievers there were killed. So, for you to laugh at the idea that God gave the Jews a certain amount of time to repent before taking His wrath out on them means you are laughing at what Jesus prophesied. That's a bad idea, buddy.

 

[PeterAndroz]

Once again, you failed to answer my question first before asking another question. I asked you why you asked me if I "believe the Mark of the Beast is active in Matt 24:31?". I'd like to have some idea of where you're going with this so that I can determine if this is worth my time to continue this discussion or not.

An Eph 4:30 sealed unto redemption believer can not lose the HS by what they do or don't
An Eph 4:30 sealed unto redemption believer according to you is part of the ELECT.
ANYONE eg an ELECT who takes the mark goes to the lake of fire.
In that case they lost the HS by taking the mark.
That being the case, EPH 4:30 can only apply to believers up to a certain 'age'

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

An Eph 4:30 sealed unto redemption believer can not lose the HS by what they do or don't
An Eph 4:30 sealed unto redemption believer according to you is part of the ELECT.
ANYONE eg an ELECT who takes the mark goes to the lake of fire.
In that case they lost the HS by taking the mark.
That being the case, EPH 4:30 can only apply to believers up to a certain 'age'

This is irrelevant to what we're talking about. We're talking about those who are elect at the time Jesus returns, regardless of what their former status might have been. According to scripture, the elect are Christians in the church.

 

[PeterAndroz]

This is irrelevant to what we're talking about. We're talking about those who are elect at the time Jesus returns, regardless of what their former status might have been. According to scripture, the elect are Christians in the church.

Do you believe the Eph 4:30 sealed are the same group as the Matt 24:31 ELECT ?

 

[Marty fox]

It’s not really “that easy,” though. Saying people simply “can’t grasp it” assumes the interpretation is already settled and self-evident, when in reality that’s exactly what’s being debated.

The issue isn’t comprehension—it’s whether your conclusion actually follows from the text. I understand what you’re trying to argue, but understanding the claim isn’t the same as accepting it as biblically correct. I knew the doctrine of preterism very well that I have determined it is unbiblical!

As for Si's another false assumption. You need to ask SI where in Scripture is it stated that God gave “40 years of probation” specifically to the Jews regarding temple sacrifices before judging them in AD 70? LOL!!!

That’s not exegesis—that’s a timeline being read into the text after the fact. The New Testament NEVER frames the destruction of the temple as a countdown of delayed tolerance for continued sacrifices, nor does it define a fixed “grace period” tied to the calendar between the cross and AD 70. No where do we read that in Scripture! That is his wishful thinking to support your false doctrine. Both of you.

By the same logic, are we supposed to conclude that if enough Jews had stopped sacrifices earlier—or if they had repented differently—the temple would have remained standing, humm? That would make the destruction contingent on human response rather than on God’s sovereign prophetic plan, which undermines the very argument being made.

And that’s the core issue: You and SI are assuming AD 70 is the fulfillment of Matthew 24:1–2, then building a moral explanation around it, and then using that explanation as proof of the interpretation. That’s circular reasoning, not biblical proof. Sad!

Continuing to offer sacrifices AFTER the cross may seems like a theologically significant to both of you, but it does not automatically establish the claim that Matthew 24 is primarily about AD 70, nor that the temple’s destruction was simply God “running out of patience.” That is an assumption layered onto the text—not drawn from it. Do better, SI.

@rwb

Yes if the Jews had stopped the temple sacrifices and accepted Jesus as their God and Messiah 70AD wouldn’t have happened that’s the whole point, judgment is based on human response. Do you really not see that?

Luke 19
41 And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, 42 saying, “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. 43 For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side 44 and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.”

Have you not read the parable of the wedding banquet or the bad tenants?

In Luke 19 Jesus was prophesying about the Jews that were living then and saying what would happen to them the very same people

God did give a grace timeline, I base my view on the fact that Jesus said in Mathew 24 that the temple would be destroyed in that generation

Why do you keep avoiding that I provid?

 

[Marty fox]

Do you really? It sure hasn't seemed like it. It's clear that rwb wasn't understanding what he was saying, at least.


Do you need him to talk for you just like you feel the need to talk for rwb? Are you afraid to ask me that question directly? What is so funny about this? Do you not think that what happened in 70 AD was God's wrath and judgment against the Jews for their rejection of Christ? Jesus Himself indicated as such.

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

This is talking about when the gospel first was preached to the Jews. The king represents God the Father and his son obviously represents Jesus Christ. The description of the king sending out his armies to destroy those who rejected his son and to burn up their city represents what happened in 70 AD when the city of Jerusalem was destroyed (much of it was set on fire) and many of the unbelievers there were killed. So, for you to laugh at the idea that God gave the Jews a certain amount of time to repent before taking His wrath out on them means you are laughing at what Jesus prophesied. That's a bad idea, buddy.

Yes amen

 

[rwb]

Yes of course, but don’t you think that them seeing that God removed it from them made them think what they did wrong? Why He did tha?

Don,t you think that may of made some of them realize that Jesus was their God and Messiah?

Marty, it is not the destruction of the Old Covenant that drives anyone to Christ. Salvation through Christ both of Old and now under the New Covenant has always been by grace through faith. Christ says "YE MUST BE BORN AGAIN" to both Jew and Gentile! Jew and Gentile alike must believe the gospel of the Kingdom of God comes to man through Christ alone to have everlasting/eternal life. If any Jew coming from the Old was born again after the Old was taken away forever, it's because they are among the elect of God who heard the Gospel preached and by grace through faith believed on Christ. No different than any other ethnic peoples of the world.

 

[rwb]

God did give a grace timeline, I base my view on the fact that Jesus said in Mathew 24 that the temple would be destroyed in that generation

The problem for the Preterit Marty, is that was not all that had to come to pass in that generation for your doctrine to be true!

 

[rwb]

Yes if the Jews had stopped the temple sacrifices and accepted Jesus as their God and Messiah 70AD wouldn’t have happened that’s the whole point, judgment is based on human response. Do you really not see that?

Do you really believe that Marty? The Old Covenant served a specific purpose; the Law was their tutor to drive them to Christ long before He came. Do you really believe the literal city, and temple would have remained standing to be thought the holy city and temple after Christ, the True Temple ushered in Jerusalem from above the True Holy City of God? How would that have worked, since it had never worked before?

It wasn't in keeping the Law that Jews of Old were eternally saved. It was keeping the Law while believing in the promised Messiah who was ordained to come to be the Savior. Keeping the Law apart from faith saved no one.

70 AD is insignificant! It just happens to be when the literal destruction happened. What is significant is that the Old was from the beginning of creation ordained to pass away once Christ came. God does not share His glory with anyone or anything! That's why Scripture tells us that Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Not because the Jews rejected God, choosing to cling to the Old rather than embracing Him. NO, it is because MANKIND rejected God from the beginning of creation. The temporary Old was always destined to be done away, not because there was something wrong with the Law, but because the Law could not take away man's sin, it could only clean them outwardly.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Do you really?

Yep, you shall see. :-)

Do you need him to talk for you just like you feel the need to talk for rwb?

Why not? Jealous for some attention?

Are you afraid to ask me that question directly?

Why should I? I can do whatever I want with my post. I decided to use it as a response to RWB to correct your interpretation. Got your attention? Looks like it worked.

What is so funny about this?

Because it is. I can clearly see that Marty and your so-called "40 years probation" as the reason is absurd.

Do you not think that what happened in 70 AD was God's wrath and judgment against the Jews for their rejection of Christ?

First, nothing in the Scripture that teaches the 70 AD was the wrath of God or anything like that. You got the timing wrong anyway as you shall see.

Jesus Himself indicated as such.

Ahh, let see...

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

This is talking about when the gospel first was preached to the Jews. The king represents God the Father and his son obviously represents Jesus Christ. The description of the king sending out his armies to destroy those who rejected his son and to burn up their city represents what happened in 70 AD when the city of Jerusalem was destroyed (much of it was set on fire) and many of the unbelievers there were killed. So, for you to laugh at the idea that God gave the Jews a certain amount of time to repent before taking His wrath out on them means you are laughing at what Jesus prophesied. That's a bad idea, buddy.

Ahem...looks like a time to correct your interpretation because you did not listen well in the past.

While the parable in Matthew 22 talks about armies, it's quite obvious that they are NOT literal/physical armies of 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. Not your precious 70A.D.

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 by 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 your Roman armies of 70 A.D., but of fulfillment in Christ. Selah! As it is written:

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 we'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, blah, blah, blah. 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. Hello?!

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."

(Continue to next post)

 

[TribulationSigns]

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. It didn't! Clearly the parable illustrates the rebuilding is the New Testament congregation. Why? Because the destruction was the Old Testament congregation. (Chuckle) People like you 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 carefully in context, shall we?

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."

SI, are we going to go by what "seems" right in our own eyes by reading Josephus, 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 on Mount Moriah that was destroyed over 30 years after the cross. What you need to understand here is talking about what the Kingdom of heaven is, likened unto. In other words, it is the congregation on Earth! Not physical city! Hello?!

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, like YOU, 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! Sorry I can stop laugh about it because you are clueless and lacks spiritual understanding here! Think about it, SI! That makes no sense! It's only accepted "because" Christians follow their leaders, church traditions, or favorite historians, etc. 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.

(again continue to next post)

 

[TribulationSigns]

Now, third, after the city was destroyed, then God sent out His servants to secure wedding guests, right? Are we to then suppose that the church waited over 30 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 30 years after Pentecost after your precious doctrine of physical destruction in 70 A.D. Do you realize that the Christians have ALREADY went out of Israel with the Holy Spirit and have established churches in surrounding countries where Apostle Paul has travelled LONG BEFORE your "evil prince," Titus, came to destroy Jerusalem? Sigh!

Fourth, for a thousandth times, 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 when the veil was torn inside the temple. And the new temple was rebuilt on 3rd day when Christ resurrected. There was a "New Jerusalem," and it CLEARLY 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 Old Testament 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 by the people of a 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. Hello?! They are the very people, HIS OWN PEOPLE, the JEWS, who came against Jerusalem by being against Christ. They were the children of their father, the messengers who were ruled by their Spirit Satan WITHIN the congregation! The kingdom of God at that time suffered violence and was taken by force, until Satan was cast out of the kingdom, and his messengers with him, and their kingdom given to another. Christ spoiled the Kingdom by conquest and set its captives free. Not 70AD! In Revelation, it's not even a physical Kingdom in physical heaven with an army of supernatural angels around a pregnant woman floating in space with physical stars on her head. No, listen... it is the representation of the Holy city, the kingdom of heaven represented on earth, and symbolized with cryptic imagery you see in books like the book of Revelation. Get this through your thick skull first! Yes, the city was destroyed by an army alright, but not a Roman one in 70 A.D., but by Satan's messengers, the people of the Prince (Jews) who had turned against Him and had taken it by force!! This is the battle where Israel FELL, and it was realized at the cross, not after 70 A.D. PERIOD!

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."

Despite your lack of understanding what angels really are, did the Salvation and the establishment of the kingdom of God began in 70A.D.? Seriously?! Of course not! It already took place at the Cross! Christ defeated the accuser Satan and his messengers and the Lord's messengers defeated them by His blood at the Cross, not the swords, staves and armies of 70 A.D.! When you 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 you, Lord's willing, 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 ALREADY established with the power of the Holy Spirit, to bring salvation Gospel out into surrounding countries, especially when Apostle Paul has gone on missionaries long before 70 AD, but by and through the army who triumphs through the blood of Christ.

Selah!

@rwb

 

[TribulationSigns]

The problem for the Preterit Marty, is that was not all that had to come to pass in that generation for your doctrine to be true!

He misunderstood what generation the Lord talked about. Typical Premillennialists and Preterists mistake.

 

[MatthewG]

Whatever you believe is your own personal conviction.

Has nothing to do with salvation.

 

[WPM]

An Eph 4:30 sealed unto redemption believer can not lose the HS by what they do or don't
An Eph 4:30 sealed unto redemption believer according to you is part of the ELECT.
ANYONE eg an ELECT who takes the mark goes to the lake of fire.
In that case they lost the HS by taking the mark.
That being the case, EPH 4:30 can only apply to believers up to a certain 'age'

The elect do not take the mark. They are sealed until the day of redemption. 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.”

It is not possible!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Do you believe the Eph 4:30 sealed are the same group as the Matt 24:31 ELECT ?

I believe that those who are sealed by the Spirit at the time Matthew 24:31 occurs are the elect who will be gathered by the angels at that time. That would include both the resurrected dead in Christ and those believers who are alive and remain until then.

Do you believe that Matthew 24:31 will occur when Jesus returns?

Do you believe that 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17, Matthew 24:30-31 and Revelation 19:11-21 describe three entirely separate events?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Why not? Jealous for some attention?

LOL! So, when I want to say something to you, should I tell someone else to relay the message to you instead of just talking to you directly? LOL! You are a silly person.

Why should I? I can do whatever I want with my post. I decided to use it as a response to RWB to correct your interpretation. Got your attention? Looks like it worked.

Yes, you do have the free will to choose to act like a child if you want. I can't stop you. Very good point there.

Because it is. I can clearly see that Marty and your so-called "40 years probation" as the reason is absurd.

You're all talk.

First, nothing in the Scripture that teaches the 70 AD was the wrath of God or anything like that. You got the timing wrong anyway as you shall see.

LOL. Jesus indicated in passages like Luke 19:41-44, Luke 21:20-24 and Matthew 22:2-7 that the destruction and desolation of Jerusalem would be a result of God's wrath. So, I guess those passages aren't scripture to you.

Ahem...looks like a time to correct your interpretation because you did not listen well in the past.

LOL! As if you are even capable of correcting anyone's interpretation? You, someone who has been DECEIVED by the spirit being named Satan and by spirit beings called demons to believe that they don't exist, think you can correct my interpretation? LOL!

While the parable in Matthew 22 talks about armies, it's quite obvious that they are NOT literal/physical armies of 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. Not your precious 70A.D.

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 by 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 your Roman armies of 70 A.D., but of fulfillment in Christ. Selah! As it is written:

LOL! It's very telling whenever I see someone who cannot understand Christ's parables (except for when He explicitly explains them). You clearly do not understand what the parable of Matthew 22:1-13 is about. It is about the gospel being preached first to the Jews before going to the Gentiles. For anyone to not even be able to discern that makes me really wonder about that person and why they are so lacking in spiritual discernment. The Jews, for the most part rejected the gospel invitation. They rejected Christ for the most part. As Matthew 23:37-38 shows, that is not what God wanted. So, it made Him angry at them. But, He did not just destroy them immediately since He is patient with people and gives them time to repent.

Once God saw that they continued to refuse to repent and turn to Christ, He took His wrath out on them and destroyed many of them and destroyed their city including their precious temple that was made spiritually desolate to them almost 40 years prior. Instead of accepting Christ and His sacrifice by way of His shed blood, they continued to foolishly keep themselves under the curse of the old covenant law. So, God took their ability to continue foolishly performing old covenant sacrifices at the temple away forever. What happened in 70 AD was God's wrath against the unbelieving Jews. To deny this requires an incredible lack of spiritual discernment.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Do you really believe that Marty? The Old Covenant served a specific purpose; the Law was their tutor to drive them to Christ long before He came. Do you really believe the literal city, and temple would have remained standing to be thought the holy city and temple after Christ, the True Temple ushered in Jerusalem from above the True Holy City of God? How would that have worked, since it had never worked before?

You continue to not understand what he is saying. He is not saying that Jerusalem was still the holy city or that the physical temple was still holy at that time. He is saying that they were destroyed because of foolishly thinking that it was still the holy city and that the temple was still holy despite Jesus telling them that their temple was rendered to them desolate around 40 years prior (Matthew 23:37-38). They foolishly kept themselves under the curse of the old covenant law rather than embracing Jesus Christ and the new covenant established by His blood. So, God took His wrath out on them as a result and even made it so that the ones who survived literally could not continue foolishly performing old covenant sacrifices at the temple any longer since it obviously was destroyed.

It wasn't in keeping the Law that Jews of Old were eternally saved.

Do you actually think that Marty is claiming this? He is not. You're making a strawman argument here. Please try to read what he's saying more carefully.