2 answers to 2 questions on the O.D.

ewq1938 · May 24, 2022

Truth7t7 said:
Scripture doesn't state "In" it Cleary states "This Generation", you have added "In" to scripture trying to validate your teaching

Once again and again, and again, and again

Scripture clearly teaches it will be a future generation that will be eyewitnesses to the signs that precede the literal, visible, second coming, know that it is near, even at the doors

"When ye shall see all these things", a future generation that will be eyewitnesses to the signs and second coming

"This Generation" that will be future eyewitnesses and see all fulfilled, not your claimed "In This Generation" relating to the time of Jesus Christ and his disciples

Matthew 24:33-34KJV
33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Yes, "this generation" was the one he described not the one who was listening.

G3778
οὗτος, οὗτοι, αὕτη, αὕται
houtos houtoi hautē hautai
hoo'-tos, hoo'-toy, how'-tay, how'-tahee
Including the nominative masculine plural (second form), nominative feminine signular (third form), and the nominate feminine plural, (fourth form). From the article G3588 and G846; the he (she or it), that is, this or that (often with the article repeated): - he (it was that), hereof, it, she, such as, the same, these, they, this (man, same, woman), which, who.
Total KJV occurrences: 352

Mat 24:34 Verily I say unto you, THAT generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

To the Preterists:

Do you like Apples? How do you like those apples?!?!

Zao is life · May 24, 2022

Randy Kluth said:
This is so critical to understand that I wish to post my own thread on 2 distinct answers to 2 distinct questions in Jesus' Olivet Discourse. First, I wish to say that I was raised in Reform Theology, and never even heard of Dispensationalism. But then, I adopted my new Christian friends' Dispensationalist views back in the early 70s, and became a Pretribber by default. All the teachings I heard were Pretrib and Dispensationalist.

I became acquainted with Hal Lindsey, and began to read the Olivet Discourse from his pov. The generation to see the rebirth of the state of Israel would see the Return of Christ.

Well obviously that didn't work out. But I turned against Pretrib well before that. My brother convinced me to memorize Scripture back in 1972, I think. I memorized, among other passages, 2 Thessalonians. In doing so, I was compelled to shift my belief to Postrib, since that is precisely what it seemed Paul was teaching there!

Yet I had trouble for many years understanding the Olivet Discourse. I continued to believe that Jesus was talking about his Coming, and about signs of the last generation, or signs of the endtimes.

Somewhere along the way I came to understand that even many schools of thoughts that I disagreed with had elements of truth in them that were important to lay hold of, including Dispensationalist thought. I found in Preterism, which I disagree with, one of the answers to this puzzle.

Preterism teaches that the Olivet Discourse is all about the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Although Preterism goes much farther than this, this important point drove me to consider what the Church Fathers believed, which was very much in line with what Preterism was teaching, absent other points of disagreement.

So I came to believe that even though I believe in a future Antichrist and in a future restoration of Israel, I think that the Olivet Discourse is largely about the fall of Jerusalem. After all, that was the main point Jesus raised at the temple, at the beginning of the Olivet Discourse. And as Jesus dismissed the importance of the temple, walking up the Mt. of Olives, he continued to assert that the temple would be destroyed, along with the city of Jerusalem.

With that in mind, the Olivet Discourse provided an answer to 2 separates questions.
1) When would the fall of Jerusalem and the temple happen?
2) When would his Coming with the Kingdom take place?

Finally, I put the confusion behind me and came to understand that Jesus was giving 2 distinct answers to 2 distinct questions.

1) Jesus said that "birth pang" signs would happen that would lead up to the fall of Jerusalem. These signs would indicate Israel's backslidden state, the Jewish people hiding evil with religious works, and persecuting true Christian saints.

This would result in natural disasters, indicating God's displeasure with the Jews. The Jewish People would hear rumblings of war from the Roman armies, that would eventually overtake the Jews in their rebellion against God.

All this would take place, according to Jesus, in "this generation." And so, Jesus answered the 1st question: when would the fall of Jerusalem take place? It would be in "this generation." Jesus said "all these things," ie the birth pang signs, would take place, along with the fall of Jerusalem itself, in "this generation," ie in the generation of Jesus' disciples.

2) Jesus said that his Coming with his Kingdom would take place long after the events of his generation. At least, this was the obvious implication, since Jesus said that the fall of Jerusalem (70 AD) would lead to an age-long Jewish dispersion among the nations until he would return only at the end of the age. Clearly, Jesus separated the 2 questions about the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD and his Coming at the end of the age into 2 distinct answers.

This means that Jesus did *not* mean to include his own Coming as one of the events to take place in his own generation. He said his Coming would *end* this age, and that all of the birth pains would alone take place in his own generation, leading up to an age-long dispersion of the Jewish People.

I truly hope this helps somebody! It sure did me! Try reading it this way and see if it doesn't make sense? Let me know.

You're assuming that Jesus was speaking only of the temple in Jerusalem. This is simply not true.

COMMON THEMES: OLIVET DISCOURSE/
THE FINAL SON OF PERDITION (2 Thessalonians 2)

Both passages involve the time of the end.
Both passages involve apostasy.
Both passages involve lawlessness of the part of Christians.
Both passages involve an abomination in the temple of God.
Both passages are talking about events leading up to the coming of the Son of man.

The Type: Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The anti-type: The man of sin:

Daniel 11
36 And the king shall do according to his will. And he shall exalt and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper until the fury is fulfilled. For that which is decreed shall be done.
37 He will not regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god. For he shall magnify himself above all.

2 Thessalonians 2
3 Let not anyone deceive you by any means. For that Day shall not come unless there first comes a falling away, and the man of sin shall be revealed, the son of perdition,
4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, setting himself forth, that he is God.

Daniel 8:11; Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 12:11 are referring to the abomination of desolation that was set up in the holy place by Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

=============== NB ==================

(i) The abomination of desolation that was set up in the holy place by Antiochus IV Epiphanes did not result in the destruction of the (second) temple: When Antiochus had been ousted from Jerusalem by the Maccabees, the temple was cleansed, sanctified and re-consecrated to God.

(ii) Unlike the abomination of desolation that was set up in the holy place by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the abominations mentioned in Daniel 9:27 resulted in the destruction of the Jerusalem temple.

====================================

Daniel 12:7
And I heard the man clothed in linen, who was on the waters of the river, when he held up his right and his left hand to Heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever that it shall be for a time, times, and a half. And when they have made an end of scattering the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.

Revelation 10:5-7
And the angel whom I saw standing on the sea and on the earth lifted his hand to the heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever and ever, who created the heaven and the things in it, and the earth and the things in it, and the sea and the things in it, that there should no longer be time. But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he will begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as He has declared to His servants the prophets.

The whole of Daniel chapter 12 is complemented and completed by the whole of Revelation chapter 10.

THE ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION IN THE HOLY PLACE

Many Christians apply the holy place in Matthew 24:15 to the temple at Jerusalem that was destroyed in 70 A.D. Yet the Greek always uses the word naos in reference to the holy place, and hieron in reference to the temple complex (buildings, courts and entire temple precincts) *

Jesus was not a priest according to the law of Moses and was not allowed into the naos. Only the priests were allowed into it. Every verse talking about Jesus entering the temple in Jerusalem uses the word hieron.

NB: Following the verses in the gospels talking about the tearing of the veil, naos (the holy place) is never again used in reference to the temple in Jerusalem, but only in reference to the church, the bodies of individual believers as the temple, and the temple in heaven. Every verse after the tearing of the veil referring to the temple in Jerusalem (multiple verses in Acts) uses the word hieron.

The Temple in Jerusalem that was destroyed in 70 A.D had not been the holy place from he time of the death of Christ, the tearing of the veil.

* Note Luke uses the words distress and wrath in Luke 21:20-24 (not the word tribulation):

"But woe to those who are with child, and to those suckling in those days! For there shall be great distress (ἀνάγκη anánkē) in the land and wrath (ὀργή orgḗ) upon this people." (Luke 21:23).

Jesus tells the saints about the tribulation they will suffer before He comes, and about the wrath of God to come upon Jerusalem. The two are not the same thing.

So there is a problem with assuming that the abomination of desolation in the holy place (Matthew 24:15) refers to the temple in Jerusalem, or to the abominations (plural) written about in Daniel 9:27, especially because of the parallels between Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the man of sin, and the parallels between the OD and 2 Thessalonians 2, and the parallels between Daniel 12 and Revelation 10.

Zao is life · May 24, 2022

Randy Kluth said:
Once again, you're begging the question: did "all these things" refer only to the birth pangs and to the fall of Jerusalem," or did it include the 2nd Coming? As I showed you, "all these things" can refer only to Jesus' generation, and exclude the coming of Jesus, which Jesus explicitly said would be *after* the tribulations of the present age and *at* the end of the age.

Of course he did. The entire conversation began with Jesus' explicit statement that the temple would fall, stone by stone.

But you're overlooking the fact that that's not all the entire conversation is about.

AUDIENCE BEING ADDRESSED IN THE OLIVET DISCOURSE:

The disciples of Jesus (Luke 21:8; Matthew 24:1; Mark 13:1-4).

SUBJECTS OF THE OLIVET DISCOURSE:

(i) The coming destruction of the temple (Matthew 24:1-2; Mark 13:1-2; Luke 21:5-6).

(ii) The coming distress of the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the coming wrath of God upon the city (Luke 21:20-24) * Note

(iii) The coming of the Son of man at the end of the Age (Matthew 24:3, 30, 36-39; Mark 13:26, 32, 35; Luke 21:27, 31, 36).

(iv) The coming of the kingdom of Christ (Matthew 24:14 & Matthew 25:1; Mark 13:10; Luke 21:31).

(v) The coming tribulation of the disciples of Jesus in the days leading up to the coming of the Son of Man (Luke 21:12-19 & 27-28; Matthew 24:9-44; Mark 13:9-13).

* Note Luke uses the words distress and wrath in Luke 21:20-24 (not the word tribulation):

"But woe to those who are with child, and to those suckling in those days! For there shall be great distress (ἀνάγκη anánkē) in the land and wrath (ὀργή orgḗ) upon this people." (Luke 21:23).

The tribulation and persecution of the disciples of Jesus that Jesus is referring to in the same Olivet Discourse is not the same as the wrath that the inhabitants of Jerusalem were to face when the city & temple were destroyed.

Note: Jesus began to speak about the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple when He was talking to the leaders of Israel in the temple (Matthew 23:35-39). Then He came out the temple, walked down the Temple Mount into the Kidron Valley, and up the Mount of Olives, when His disciples, the view of the temple now opposite them, pointed out how magnificent it was. So what did Jesus do? He repeated to them what He had just an hour or two before this already said to the scribes and Pharisees (and in Matthew 23:38 Jesus was also confirming Daniel 9:26-27. It was all fulfilled in the first century. The Messiah strengthened the New Covenant in His blood and by doing so, caused the sacrifice and oblation or the necessity for it, to cease).

But the disciples, not knowing at the time that the time the destruction of the temple would be destroyed, was not the same as the time of His return and the end of the Age, unknowingly asked Him a loaded question.

When Luke speaks about the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, he says, "But woe to those who are with child, and to those suckling in those days! For there shall be great distress (ἀνάγκη anánkē) in the land and wrath (ὀργή orgḗ) upon this people." (Luke 21:23).

Matthew 24:19 says the same thing, but the apostles and Luke wrote the gospels and all their epistles before 70 A.D so they had no way of knowing when they recorded what Jesus had said when which part of His prophecy would occur. They merely recorded everything Jesus had said, according as they could remember, and Luke recorded what he heard from eye witnesses.

We cannot expect that the OD will be recorded in a "this will happen, then that will happen" fashion. We have to look at the overall picture - but it does not help if we ascribe the AoD mentioned in Matthew 24:15 to what is written in Daniel 9:27, and it especially doesn't help if we ascribe Daniel 9:27 to the end of this Age.

The temple that was destroyed in 70 A.D had ceased being the holy place (Greek naos) of God's presence when Jesus died. Matthew 24:15 speaks of one abomination (singular) but Daniel 9:27 speaks of abominations (plural).

Randy Kluth · May 24, 2022

ewq1938 said:
It is plus there is no "Jewish tribulations" in the passage.

I gave you proof of this, and you don't in the least make an effort to answer this.

Post #31

Randy Kluth · May 24, 2022

Truth7t7 said:
1.) Randy when did or will Matthew 24:30 in this literal, visible, second coming take place?

2.) When did or will Matthew 24:15 the Abomination Of Desolation take place?

3.) When did or will Matthew 24:21 the great tribulation take place?

The Son of Man returns at the end of the age, after the Jewish punishment of the present age.

The AoD was the fall of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans in 70 AD, which began the age of Jewish punishment.

The Great Tribulation, according to Luke 21, is the Jewish Punishment of the present age, which will end to preserve the hope of Israel's national restoration.

This Discourse was given while still in the Old Testament era, when the nation Israel was still God's only chosen nation on earth. But they were about to lose their religion with the fall of the temple, and God would turn to other nations, since Israel had broken their covenant with God.

This does not, however, end Israel's hope. It is just a setback in the present age.

Randy Kluth · May 24, 2022

Truth7t7 said:
Scripture doesn't state "In" it Cleary states "This Generation", you have added "In" to scripture trying to validate your teaching

You're being judgmental. I was not changing words to distort anything. Rather, I was choosing to use my own words in the belief they meant the same thing. The use of quotations can be used either as an exact quotation or as a personal expression indicating the same thought. If you're in attack mode, we won't have a serious conversation.

Randy Kluth · May 24, 2022

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
You're assuming that Jesus was speaking only of the temple in Jerusalem. This is simply not true.

That is your claim, and is only your opinion. We have different opinions. I do think Jesus was speaking only of the temple in Jerusalem. That is where the Discourse began, and that is what he and his disciples were looking at when he gave this Discourse.

Comparing the Olivet Discourse with 2 Thes 2 exposes some distinct differences. Jesus was speaking while still under the OT to Israel, whereas Paul in 2 Thes is speaking to the Church. Jesus was speaking of the end of Israel's covenant and blessing, while Paul was speaking of the Church and its new position in God's plan. Paul was speaking of the Antichrist mentioned in Dan 7. Jesus was speaking of the Roman destruction of the "city and the sanctuary" in Dan 9.26-27.

There are often parallels in history because God is always the same, and sin is always the same. There are going to be parallels. But any similarity between Antiochus 4, the Roman desolation of Jerusalem, and Antichrist's reign do not indicate the same events.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
Many Christians apply the holy place in Matthew 24:15 to the temple at Jerusalem that was destroyed in 70 A.D. Yet the Greek always uses the word naos in reference to the holy place, and hieron in reference to the temple complex (buildings, courts and entire temple precincts) *

You are using an interpretive fallacy to prove your point. The common use of naos or hieron in the Scriptures does not predetermine how they may be used everywhere.

The "holy place" used by Jesus is a reference back to Dan 9.26-27 where an army comes to destroy "the city and the sanctuary," setting up the "abomination of desolation." That indicates the AoD is the pagan army, and the "holy place" is the environs of Jerusalem.

Words mean what they mean *in context,* and not by their "regular" or "most common" use. The *context,* in this case, is the destruction of the city of Jerusalem, a "holy place," which makes the pagan army of Rome an "abominable" desolator.

Randy Kluth · May 24, 2022

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
But you're overlooking the fact that that's not all the entire conversation is about.

Actually, with all due respect, my whole point in forwarding this argument is to deal with what the entire conversation is about. It is about separating the 2 questions into their proper categories so as to not mix them. What was to happen in "this generation" was one category, and what was to happen at the *end of the age* was in another category.

My view is that these 2 categories should not be confused. "All these things" were the "birth pangs" leading up to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. That is one category. The Coming of the Son of Man takes place at the end of the age. That is another category.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
* Note Luke uses the words distress and wrath in Luke 21:20-24 (not the word tribulation):

I question this. "Great Tribulation," Jewish Punishment, distress and tribulation are all used interchangeably to refer to the same Jewish Diaspora, or exile, of the current age. It began in 70 AD with the fall of the temple, and it ends at the Return of Christ to save Israel. This was, in effect, an OT prophecy, that now has a continuing fulfillment in the NT era.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
The tribulation and persecution of the disciples of Jesus that Jesus is referring to in the same Olivet Discourse is not the same as the wrath that the inhabitants of Jerusalem were to face when the city & temple were destroyed.

This Discourse refers *both* to God's punishment of the Jewish People and about the persecution of Jewish Christians by non-Christian Jews. As I said, this was an OT prophecy, when a remnant of Jews were becoming Christians, and most of Israel decided to reject Christ and to persecute Jews that accepted Christ.

One of the reasons God was going to punish the Jews was because of their rejection of Christ and because of their persecution of Jewish believers. Jesus said the love of the Jewish people had grown "cold," and lawlessness was increasing. And so, their religion would be invalidated as a broken covenant. It would eventually lead to the destruction of their temple in "this generation."

Truth7t7 · May 24, 2022

Randy Kluth said:
The Son of Man returns at the end of the age, after the Jewish punishment of the present age.

The AoD was the fall of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans in 70 AD, which began the age of Jewish punishment.

The Great Tribulation, according to Luke 21, is the Jewish Punishment of the present age, which will end to preserve the hope of Israel's national restoration.

This Discourse was given while still in the Old Testament era, when the nation Israel was still God's only chosen nation on earth. But they were about to lose their religion with the fall of the temple, and God would turn to other nations, since Israel had broken their covenant with God.

This does not, however, end Israel's hope. It is just a setback in the present age.

Randy scripture clearly teaches that Daniel's AOD in verse 15 below causes the great tribulation seen in verse 21, a time of trouble never to be seen in history?

Randy scripture clearly teaches that "Immediately After" this time of trouble the literal, visible, return of Jesus Christ takes place in the heavens?

Randy how do you account for a 70AD Abomination Of Desolation and Great Tribulation, with a future literal, visible, second coming of Jesus in the heavens, when the second coming is "Immediately After" a tribulation in 70AD?

Will you now claim the great tribulation seen in verse 21 with humans quickly fleeing Jerusalem has been continously taking place for the past 2,000 years, with Jesus returning after this claim of a 2,000 year long great tribulation?

Matthew 24:15-21 & 29-30KJV
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand

16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Truth7t7 · May 24, 2022

Randy Kluth said:
You're being judgmental. I was not changing words to distort anything. Rather, I was choosing to use my own words in the belief they meant the same thing. The use of quotations can be used either as an exact quotation or as a personal expression indicating the same thought. If you're in attack mode, we won't have a serious conversation.

It's my opinion the word "In" was added to validate your teaching, it's that simple

"This Generation" that will be future eyewitnesses and see all fulfilled, not your claimed "In This Generation" relating to the time of Jesus Christ and his disciples

Matthew 24:33-34KJV
33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Taken · May 24, 2022

Randy Kluth said:
For some reason Dispensationalists divide Jews from salvation offered to all ethnicities. And Reform Theology divides Israel from salvation offered to all nations. But does God really reject ethnicities and nations simply because not *all* in an ethnic group is saved, and not *all* in a national group is saved?

God established Division..between many things...including... between Hebrews/Tribes/Jews and Gentiles.
Jews one Race...further divide themselves individually one from another.
Gentiles one Race...further divide themselves individually one from another.

Salvation is Gift from God, Offered ALL natural born Living men.
How men Receive His Gift ... IS ALWAYS AFTER a bodily DEATH.
A man of Either race (Jew or Gentile) BECOME AS ONE SAME (race no longer a dividing factor), IF and WHEN they receive Gods Gift of Salvation.

I don't believe so. Would you throw out the idea of having a Christian family simply because one or two people in the family decide to not be Christians? No, you would separate out those who wish to be non-Christian and continue the family with the Christians that remain.

.

Calling oneself “a Christian”, is NOT the deciding factor of WHO receives Gods Gift of Salvation.
Calling oneself “a Christian”, “a Muslim”, “ a Buddhist”, whatever...and they be strangers or family members....it is individuals who DECIDE, to continue relationships or sever relationships, for religious purposes, or entirely.

The same is true with the Jewish ethnicity and nationality. Nations rise and fall. Israel fell, as all nations do.

Nations are simply boundary-ed lands, with express occupants within those land with citizenship and allegiance to that Nation, and foreigners without citizenship and allegiance to that Nation.
True enough....Nations are particularly in Jeopardy of “falling”, when the highest Servants of the Nation are Underhandedly Corrupt....and or the Nations is Occupied by a relatively LARGE number of Foreigners, rather than Citizens. (SADLY....Expressly the Jeopardy the US is currently Facing).

And so, when Israel fell, the Jewish ethnicity seemed to perish along with national Israel.

It didn’t fall, it became Scattered. Jews still identify as Jews, regardless if they Practice the Jewish Religion, or Any Religion.

But the Scriptures say that God does not give up on nations simply because many of them fail. They can be given a 2nd chance. And those who wish to no longer be part of God's covenant can be cut off and let go, rebuilding the people and the nation around the original faith.

Hebrews, Tribes, Jews, Israelites...whatever they are called have from Ancient Days been called BY God, His People. (Ie as God says...”My People”.)

The process Israel has gone through all Christian nations have gone through. But has God given up on Russians, Ukrainians, the English, the French, the Spanish, the German, the America, the Australian, the New Zealander, the Canadian, etc. etc.? No, by no means!

God has Not given up on ISRAEL. Once Jesus established His Church, being Taught by Jews, TO Jews and Gentiles, AND Gentiles “took over Christ’s Church”, the Jews relented, and returned to their OLD Laws, OLD Religion. IMO, that was the turning Point, that God BLINDED the Jews, to make the Jews Jealous of the Gentiles Assuming “the Jews God” and the “Jews Messiah”.

God IS ANGRY! Angry the Jews relented. Angry at what Gentiles in many Churches are Calling “His Word”, when it is NOT. Angry at HOW MUCH influence Satan has over men. Angry at Men in Power positions WHO are Wicked, Lying, Corrupt. Angry at Men who follow along Doing as Evil does, Doing as Wicked does...MAKING “them” the People’s “Master”.

(Our own “founding fathers” Understood this, and WHY the Federal Government was designed to be VERY small, VERY limited, and taking turns as SERVANTS, (NOT GLUED to Seats FOR YEARS, daily in your face Dictating “Masters”) to oversee a VERY limited few things, protecting the Peoples RIGHTS (NOT raping the People of their Right to be Free and Independent to take care of themselves or go without.)

There is no "7 years tribulation" in my view. The Great Tribulation Jesus spoke of is the Jewish Punishment of the present age. When it ends God will regather Israel into a Christian nation. And many Christian nations will be restored, as well. That's how I perceive God's promises to Abraham.

God IS Angry, and so ARE numerous People who Look at the Corrupt state of the World, 24-7 Promoted, Instigated, as Acceptable.
** There WAS a beginning, Created and Established BY Gods WILL and I believe there SHALL BE an ENDING as God Has Foretold.
** Gentiles primarily (rather than Jews) for the last 2,000 years have been ACCEPTING Gods Offering of “ASSURED” Salvation “NOW”, By, Through, Of, Conversion; By, Through, Of Jesus, the Word of God and Of Christ, the Power of God. Gods Offered AND a mans ACCEPTANCE of Conversion, (according to Gods WAY), IS EXPRESSLY a man; DOING THE WILL OF GOD.
** There IS a foretold 7 yr period of Gods Wrath He shall send down from Heaven. What He sends down, IS expressly to “punish”, ie negatively Affect the inhabitants upon the face of the Earth....FOR NOT doing the WILL of God...As IN Noah’s day, SOME shall be Lifted UP off the face of the Earth, (which shall apply to the Converted), A FEW (of Gods People...not Gentiles) have an express SEAL of God, AND a mission to Accomplish DURING the Tribulation.
Gods Tribulation, IS Primarily punishment, and Especially Rescue of Gods Faithful People, ISRAEL.
** IF you are CONVERTED, you are NOT subject to experience WRATH, and there is plenty of Wrath to go around during the 7 yr Tribulation.
Wrath of the Lamb, the Devils Wrath, Gods Wrath, Gods Vengeance...,
So horrific, men will wish to die, try to die....but Can NOT.
** IF you are NOT CONVERTED, and still living, WHEN God decides to begin His Tribulation, you will get to experience some or all of the Tribulation.

Zao is life · May 24, 2022

Randy Kluth said:
Actually, with all due respect, my whole point in forwarding this argument is to deal with what the entire conversation is about. It is about separating the 2 questions into their proper categories so as to not mix them. What was to happen in "this generation" was one category, and what was to happen at the *end of the age* was in another category.

My view is that these 2 categories should not be confused. "All these things" were the "birth pangs" leading up to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. That is one category. The Coming of the Son of Man takes place at the end of the age. That is another category.

I question this. "Great Tribulation," Jewish Punishment, distress and tribulation are all used interchangeably to refer to the same Jewish Diaspora, or exile, of the current age. It began in 70 AD with the fall of the temple, and it ends at the Return of Christ to save Israel. This was, in effect, an OT prophecy, that now has a continuing fulfillment in the NT era.

This Discourse refers *both* to God's punishment of the Jewish People and about the persecution of Jewish Christians by non-Christian Jews. As I said, this was an OT prophecy, when a remnant of Jews were becoming Christians, and most of Israel decided to reject Christ and to persecute Jews that accepted Christ.

One of the reasons God was going to punish the Jews was because of their rejection of Christ and because of their persecution of Jewish believers. Jesus said the love of the Jewish people had grown "cold," and lawlessness was increasing. And so, their religion would be invalidated as a broken covenant. It would eventually lead to the destruction of their temple in "this generation."

The gospels are the recollection of the apostles and eye witnesses, and were all written before 70 A.D, when the apostles, the eye witnesses, and the authors who penned the gospels had no way of knowing that the return of Christ would not follow immediately after the events of 70 A.D.

The apostles had indeed unknowingly asked Jesus a loaded question when He told them the temple would be destroyed, but when the gospels were recorded, everything the apostles and eye witnesses could recall Jesus having said when He gave this sermon, was recorded.

Your mistake is the fact that you're viewing the Olivet Dsicourse in a "this will happen, then that will happen" fashion, using human reason. We should never do that with biblical prophecy. The holy Spirit does not move within the constraints of 'time' along a continuous horizontal line. As can be seen with regard to Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the man of sin of 2 Thessalonians 2, prophecy is not necessarily fulfilled only by one person: One prophecy can be fulfilled by different people living in different epochs in history. There are many examples of this:-

Great Trib Circles Burning fiery furnace-great tribulation.png

We need the Holy Spirit to correctly interpret not only the Olivet Discourse, but all prophecy, or we will be using human reason (as you are doing with the Olivet Discourse).

We also cannot and must not ignore the fact that the holy place ceased being the temple in Jerusalem the moment the veil in it was torn. After this the very next verse to employ the word naos is:

Acts 7:48a
But, the Most High does not dwell in temples (Greek: naos) made with hands.

Acts 17:24
The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of Heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples (Greek naos) made with hands.

Then it uses the word naos only for

i. The bodies of believers as a temple; and
ii. The church as the temple; and
iii. the temple in heaven:

1 Corinthians 3:16-17 & 1 Corinthians 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:21; 2 Thessalonians 2:4; Revelation 3:12; Revelation 7:15; Revelation 11:1-2; Revelation 11:19; Revelation 14:15 & Revelation 14:17; Revelation 15:5-6 & Revelation 15:8; Revelation 16:1 & Revelation 16:17; Revelation 21:22

* The only exception is Acts 19:24, where the word naos is referring not to the church, but to shrines made for the goddess Diana). (the only place in the New Testament where the word is not referring to God's Temple)

Revelation mentions no other city other than

(i) New Jerusalem; and

(ii) Babylon the Great, or the city"spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified." (Revelation 11:8).

There is no verse in the Revelation where Babylon the Great is called "the holy city", but the Revelation calls New Jerusalem the holy city three times:- Revelation 21:2; Revelation 21:10; and Revelation 22:19.

* Revelation 11:2 is talking about the holy city.

* The other city referred to in Revelation chapter 11, is referred to as a city that is "spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified." (Revelation 11:8).

Here are all the verses in the New Testament referring to the holy city:-

(i) Before the tearing of the veil:

Matthew 4:5 Then the Devil took Him up into the holy city and set Him upon a pinnacle of the Temple.

(ii) After the tearing of the veil:

Matthew 27:53 After His resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

(iii) The four remaining references to the holy city are in the Revelation (already mentioned above).

Zao is life · May 24, 2022

Randy Kluth said:
You are using an interpretive fallacy to prove your point. The common use of naos or hieron in the Scriptures does not predetermine how they may be used everywhere.

Temple complex (hieron):

Matthew 4:5; Matthew 12:5-6; Matthew 21:12; Matthew 21:14-15; Matthew 21:23; Matthew 24:1; Matthew 26:55; Mark 11:11 & 15-16; Mark 11:27; Mark 12:35; Mark 13:1 & 3; Mark 14:49; Luke 2:27, 37 & 46; Luke 4:9; Luke 18:10; Luke 19:45 & 47; Luke 20:1 & 5; Luke 21:37-38; Luke 22:52-53; John 2:14-15; John 5:14; John 7:14 & 28; John 8:2, 20 & 59; John 10:23; John 11:56; John 18:20.

-- veil torn --

Temple complex (hieron):

Luke 24:53; Acts 2:46; Acts 3:1-3, 8 & 10; Acts 4:1; Acts 5:20-21 & 24-25; Acts 5:42; Acts 21:26-30; Acts 22:17; Acts 24:6, 12 & 18; Acts 25:8; Acts 26:21; 1 Corinthians 9:13.

Place of the Holy Presence of God (naós)

-- in the temple complex --

Luke 1:9 & 21-22; Matthew 23:16-17 & 21; Matthew 23:35; Matthew 27:5; John 2:20; Matthew 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45.

-- Body of Christ --

(John 2:19 & 21; Matthew 26:61; Matthew 27:40; Mark 14:58; Mark 15:29)

-- The veil torn -- *
(Matthew 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45).

Acts 7:48a
But, the Most High does not dwell in temples (Greek: naos) made with hands.

Acts 17:24
The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of Heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples (Greek naos) made with hands.

Compare the above two verses with:

Hebrews 9
24 For Christ has not entered into the Holy of Holies made with (human) hands, which are the figures of the true, but into Heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.

-- the church & the temple in heaven --

1 Corinthians 3:16-17 & 1 Corinthians 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:21; 2 Thessalonians 2:4; Revelation 3:12; Revelation 7:15; Revelation 11:1-2; Revelation 11:19; Revelation 14:15 & Revelation 14:17; Revelation 15:5-6 & Revelation 15:8; Revelation 16:1 & Revelation 16:17; Revelation 21:22

I have not decided where and how the words may be used - the Greek New Testament itself has. You just choose to ignore these facts and in the process, you continue to interpret the Olivet Discourse using human reasoning.

So the New Testament teaches us that the Temple in Jerusalem that was destroyed in 70 A.D ceased being the holy place when the veil in it was torn.

Basic Christianity. Should not be thrown out of the window in order to interpret Matthew 24 despite the fact.

Truth7t7 · May 24, 2022

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
The gospels are the recollection of the apostles and eye witnesses, and were all written before 70 A.D, when the apostles, the eye witnesses, and the authors who penned the gospels had no way of knowing that the return of Christ would not follow immediately after the events of 70 A.D.

The apostles had indeed unknowingly asked Jesus a loaded question when He told them the temple would be destroyed, but when the gospels were recorded, everything the apostles and eye witnesses could recall Jesus having said when He gave this sermon, was recorded.

Your mistake is the fact that you're viewing the Olivet Dsicourse in a "this will happen, then that will happen" fashion, using human reason. We should never do that with biblical prophecy. The holy Spirit does not move within the constraints of 'time' along a continuous horizontal line. As can be seen with regard to Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the man of sin of 2 Thessalonians 2, prophecy is not necessarily fulfilled only by one person: One prophecy can be fulfilled by different people living in different epochs in history. There are many examples of this:-View attachment 22841

View attachment 22842

View attachment 22843

View attachment 22844
View attachment 22845

View attachment 22846

View attachment 22847

We need the Holy Spirit to correctly interpret not only the Olivet Discourse, but all prophecy, or we will be using human reason (as you are doing with the Olivet Discourse).

We also cannot and must not ignore the fact that the holy place ceased being the temple in Jerusalem the moment the veil in it was torn. After this the very next verse to employ the word naos is:

Acts 7:48a
But, the Most High does not dwell in temples (Greek: naos) made with hands.

Acts 17:24
The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of Heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples (Greek naos) made with hands.

Then it uses the word naos only for

i. The bodies of believers as a temple; and
ii. The church as the temple; and
iii. the temple in heaven:

1 Corinthians 3:16-17 & 1 Corinthians 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:21; 2 Thessalonians 2:4; Revelation 3:12; Revelation 7:15; Revelation 11:1-2; Revelation 11:19; Revelation 14:15 & Revelation 14:17; Revelation 15:5-6 & Revelation 15:8; Revelation 16:1 & Revelation 16:17; Revelation 21:22

* The only exception is Acts 19:24, where the word naos is referring not to the church, but to shrines made for the goddess Diana). (the only place in the New Testament where the word is not referring to God's Temple)

Revelation mentions no other city other than

(i) New Jerusalem; and

(ii) Babylon the Great, or the city"spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified." (Revelation 11:8).

There is no verse in the Revelation where Babylon the Great is called "the holy city", but the Revelation calls New Jerusalem the holy city three times:- Revelation 21:2; Revelation 21:10; and Revelation 22:19.

* Revelation 11:2 is talking about the holy city.

* The other city referred to in Revelation chapter 11, is referred to as a city that is "spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified." (Revelation 11:8).

Here are all the verses in the New Testament referring to the holy city:-

(i) Before the tearing of the veil:

Matthew 4:5 Then the Devil took Him up into the holy city and set Him upon a pinnacle of the Temple.

(ii) After the tearing of the veil:

Matthew 27:53 After His resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

(iii) The four remaining references to the holy city are in the Revelation (already mentioned above).

I agree with much of your post, but I'm still trying to understand your desired outcome and purpose of the post?

The temple in Jerusalem was abolished at the death of Jesus Christ on Calvary, the veil was torn "I Agree 100%"

Zao is life · May 24, 2022

Truth7t7 said:
I agree with much of your post, but I'm still trying to understand your desired outcome and purpose of the post?

The temple in Jerusalem was abolished at the death of Jesus Christ on Calvary, the veil was torn "I Agree 100%"

Jesus no longer called that building "My house" or "God's house" when He told the scribes and Pharisees it would be left to them desolate (Matthew 23:38). Before this He called it God's house (Matthew 21:13; Matthew 23:16).

But that building that had once housed the holy place of God's presence still stood for another 37-40 years, and daily sacrifices continued to be made in it by the Jews, despite the fact that when the veil of the temple was torn, it was because Jesus had become the once-for-all sacrifice for sin. These were the abominations (plural) Daniel 9:27 was talking about. They were showing what they thought of God's Messiah and His sacrifice for sin.

If God had not given that building where they were making daily sacrifices and offerings for sin over to the Romans to be destroyed along with the city of Jerusalem, would they have continued to make daily sacrifices and offerings for sin?

Of course they would have. Suppose that temple was not destroyed by the Romans, and suppose no one ever destroyed it. Would they still be making daily sacrifices and offerings for sin in that building in their continued rejection of the Messiah, even today?

For sure they would be.

But it was no longer the holy place - the holy place of the presence of God when it was destroyed, and had not been for 37-40 years.

The abomination of desolation in the holy place (let the reader understand) is linked by Matthew 24:9-14 to the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus in a day when the gospel has been preached to all nations and they have become hated by all nations for His name's sake. It's referring to one abomination, not abominations (plural), which is what Daniel 9:27 is referring to (the continued sacrifices and offerings for sin), and which is why God handed that building over to be destroyed after having given them enough time (I believe it was 40 years) to repent of their unbelief.

It would not be considered an abomination if it was not placed in the Holy Place of God's presence, which the Jerusalem temple no longer was. But when the man of sin seats himself up in the New Testament temple and is followed in his blasphemy by all who take part in the apostasy (2 Thessalonians 2), then it will be the abomination of desolation in the holy place (let the reader understand), and it will be the anti-type of the idol Antiochus placed in the temple. Though this time the idol will be the man of sin himself.

And if the Pope succeeded once in placing himself up as the head of the church in a unified Western church and to be followed by all and considered the only authority on all matters of doctrine (even above the scriptures), then it's not too difficult to imagine how most churches will become unified again under such a "head of the church" (although it does not mean the man will be a Pope or Catholic).

Naos (the holy place) is used for the temple in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and Revelation 11:1-2.

Truth7t7 · May 24, 2022

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
Jesus no longer called that building "My house" or "God's house" when He told the scribes and Pharisees it would be left to them desolate (Matthew 23:38). Before this He called it God's house (Matthew 21:13; Matthew 23:16).

But that building that had once housed the holy place of God's presence still stood for another 37-40 years, and daily sacrifices continued to be made in it by the Jews, despite the fact that when the veil of the temple was torn, it was because Jesus had become the once-for-all sacrifice for sin. These were the abominations (plural) Daniel 9:27 was talking about. They were showing what they thought of God's Messiah and His sacrifice for sin.

If God had not given that building where they were making daily sacrifices and offerings for sin over to the Romans to be destroyed along with the city of Jerusalem, would they have continued to make daily sacrifices and offerings for sin?

Of course they would have. Suppose that temple was not destroyed by the Romans, and suppose no one ever destroyed it. Would they still be making daily sacrifices and offerings for sin in that building in their continued rejection of the Messiah, even today?

For sure they would be.

But it was no longer the holy place - the holy place of the presence of God when it was destroyed, and had not been for 37-40 years.

The abomination of desolation in the holy place (let the reader understand) is linked by Matthew 24:9-14 to the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus in a day when the gospel has been preached to all nations and they have become hated by all nations for His name's sake. It's referring to one abomination, not abominations (plural), which is what Daniel 9:27 is referring to (the continued sacrifices and offerings for sin), and which is why God handed that building over to be destroyed after having given them enough time (I believe it was 40 years) to repent of their unbelief.

It would not be considered an abomination if it was not placed in the Holy Place of God's presence, which the Jerusalem temple no longer was. But when the man of sin seats himself up in the New Testament temple and is followed in his blasphemy by all who take part in the apostasy (2 Thessalonians 2), then it will be the abomination of desolation in the holy place (let the reader understand), and it will be the anti-type of the idol Antiochus placed in the temple. Though this time the idol will be the man of sin himself.

And if the Pope succeeded once in placing himself up as the head of the church in a unified Western church and to be followed by all and considered the only authority on all matters of doctrine (even above the scriptures), then it's not too difficult to imagine how most churches will become unified again under such a "head of the church" (although it does not mean the man will be a Pope or Catholic).

Naos (the holy place) is used for the temple in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and Revelation 11:1-2.

Thanks for the detailed response, I fully agree with your temple analysis regarding the death of Jesus Christ, and the veil being torn, never to be inhabited by God again, Jesus Christ was the ultimate sacrifice, once and for all "It Is Finished"

I fully disagree with your reformed eschatology in claims of Matthew 24:15 in the AOD being fulfilled by Antoichus Epiphanies 167BC or some 70AD figure

Matthew 24:15 Daniel's Abomination is a "Future" event unfulfilled, just as Daniel 9:27 below clearly teaches, the future bad guy will be present on earth to the very "Consummation" or "Ultimate End" a "Future" event unfulfilled, it's that simple, and scripture isn't going to change

The words "Even Until The Consummation" destroys reformed eschatology's claims in Antiochus Epiphanies or some 70AD figure "Gone"

Merriam-Webster
Definition of consummation

1: the act of consummating the consummation of a contract by mutual signature specifically : the consummating of a marriage
2: the ultimate end :Finish

Daniel 9:27KJV
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Jesus Is The Lord

Randy Kluth · May 24, 2022

Truth7t7 said:
It's my opinion the word "In" was added to validate your teaching, it's that simple

Sure, it's your judgmental opinion, but I'm the one who spoke and who *knows* what I meant. I was paraphrasing something, ie saying exactly what I believed was being said--not trying to subtly change the meaning. If all you have is a judgmental guess, it means nothing to me.

Truth7t7 said:
"This Generation" that will be future eyewitnesses and see all fulfilled, not your claimed "In This Generation" relating to the time of Jesus Christ and his disciples

Sorry, "this generation" means *this generation,* and not some future generation.

ewq1938 · May 24, 2022

Randy Kluth said:
Sorry, "this generation" means *this generation,* and not some future generation.

It can validly be translated as "that generation" meaning the generation he was speaking about, not to. "this generation" can also be understood as a generation described not the one listening which is the case.

Randy Kluth · May 24, 2022

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
Temple complex (hieron):
Temple complex (hieron):...

I have not decided where and how the words may be used - the Greek New Testament itself has. You just choose to ignore these facts and in the process, you continue to interpret the Olivet Discourse using human reasoning.

So the New Testament teaches us that the Temple in Jerusalem that was destroyed in 70 A.D ceased being the holy place when the veil in it was torn.

Basic Christianity. Should not be thrown out of the window in order to interpret Matthew 24 despite the fact.

I could've saved you loads of time. This is not the 1st time I've debated this point. I'm well aware of the references--I have concordances.

As I said before, words mean what they mean *in context.* This is a cardinal rule. I don't care if nearly every time the word "holy place" is used, it refers to the temple in the Scriptures, or to the "holy place" within the temple. If in a single instance, the context changes, and the word applies outside of the temple to another sense of a "holy place," then it does *not* refer to the temple nor to the holy place of the temple.

We have such an instance in the Olivet Discourse, where Jesus said that an army will gather in the holy place, ie in the vicinity of Jerusalem, laying siege to that city. It was a pagan army committing sacrilege in the area of the temple simply by threatening its city at its gates.

This was not the offering of a pig on the altar, nor was it setting up an abominable idol in the temple area. Rather, it was an army laying siege to the holy city of Jerusalem, and thus desecrating area that the Jews considered holy.

The Romans had already been in the vicinity, but until 66-70 AD they had not threatened to tear down this relic and center of Jewish religion. So, it was in 66-70 AD that the pagan Romans violated their sacred trust by determining to completely annihilate Jewish religion, which was accomplished fully in 70 AD.

This is precisely what Daniel indicated would happen in 9.26-27, an Abomination of Desolation being set up in the holy area surrounding the "city and the sanctuary." It would result in the destruction of the same. The "people of the ruler to come" were the Romans, who in fact accomplished this deed. Jesus made reference to this very passage.

Matt 24.15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."

Dan 9.26 the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.... And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation.

There are several uses of "holy place" in the OT Scriptures. Reference to THE holy place is merely a technical application of a particular holy place known to the readers, depending on context. The OT reference to "THE holy place" is always a reference to the temple room known by that name, since that was the regular application of that term under the OT religious system.

But when the language applies "the holy place" to a different context, such as we have in the Olivet Discourse, the technical application must change with the context. Instead of the room in the temple, the application is to "the city and the sanctuary" as a whole, according to its intended focus in Dan 9.26.

"The holy place," therefore, is no longer a reference to a room in the temple. Instead, the context is suggesting not a defamation of the temple and its rooms, nor a committing of idolatrous sacrilege within a holy room of the temple, but rather, a reference to its utter destruction, both buildings and religious system.

The Roman armies laid siege to the entire area, representing an unholy sacrilege in the environment of Jerusalem, with the target being the destruction of the entire set of buildings. None of this has a thing with committing sacrilege in the holy place of the temple, such as installing an idol inside of the temple. That was an earlier picture of what Antiochus 4 did, and we should not confuse the two very different AoDs!

Truth7t7 · May 24, 2022

Randy Kluth said:
Sorry, "this generation" means *this generation,* and not some future generation.

"This Generation" pertains to those future believers, who will be actual eyewitnesses of the signs and second coming, it's that simple

The major theme of Matthew 24 & Luke 21 is the signs and the literal, visible, second coming of Jesus in the heavens

"Future Events Unfulfilled"

Luke 21:26-28KJV
26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

2 answers to 2 questions on the O.D.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads