A recent exchange with a reasoning AI pertaining to Matthew 24:15-30

Davidpt · Apr 26, 2026

Not meaning Chatgpt in this case. My main opponent in lot of these threads involving subjects like this is mainly @Spiritual Israelite. Not that there are not others as well. Except he is the most vocal in regards to what I post pertaining to subjects like this. And besides, we at least have something in common concerning Matthew 24:30. We both agree it is involving the 2nd coming in the end of this age. But where we are miles apart is with verses 15-29.

@Spiritual Israelite interpretation of verses 15-30 is not the typical view of interpreters. It is a hybrid view that a small minority hold. Everyone else pretty much hold a view like such. If verses 15-21 are involving 70 AD, then so is the coming meant in verse 30 involving 70 AD. If verse 30 is involving the final days of this age leading up to the 2nd coming, then so are verses 15-29 involving these same closing days of this age.

So I then posed the following in post# 2 for this AI to examine then present it's findings. And I did it in this case with @Spiritual Israelite in mind since he doesn't hold a typical view of verses 15-30. The following, beginning with post #2, is this exchange with that AI and that I will have to spread this out over multiple posts. Except I'm going to leave the AI's thinking process out of it since it will be plainly obvious as to why and how it is arriving at what is does.

The point is, in general, who is being logical throughout here. @Spiritual Israelite or this AI? BTW, my logic matches the AI's logic. I did not get my logic from the AI nor did it get it's logic via me. Yet our logic is basically the same pertaining to these verses in question. Plus, @Spiritual Israelite has been asking me for ages how verses 15-21 can not mean 70 AD, but is meaning the 21st century and is meaning spiritually rather than literally. The AI actually addresses and answers that at the end of the OP. One can either agree that it's answers are reasonable, or one can agree it's nonsensical instead. Either way, at least a solution is provided.

Davidpt · Apr 26, 2026

----------------

Me, and how this session began:

Matthew 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
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.
25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
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:

Any theological debates aside. Verse 29 indicates---Immediately after the tribulation of those days. Some interpreters argue that it is not meaning the tribulation of days pertaining to verse 21. They also argue that verses 23-26 are not meaning during verses 15-21, but are meaning post that. And that this is where another tribulation of those days is meaning. Does the text logically support that conclusion?

The reason why they do this is this, these interpreters are not Preterists, yet align with Preterists concerning verses 15-21. Where they too apply that to 70 AD but then apply verse 30 to that of the 2nd coming in the end of this age.

And that immediately after the tribulation of those days is not meaning after verses 15-21, but is meaning after another tribulation of days that follow sometime after those.

Their view looks like comething like this. First, verses 15-21 are fulfilled in 70 AD. Then another tribulation of days follow, a global tribulation, not a local tribulation, and that it is immediately after this 2nd tribulation of days conclude some 2000 years later when the stars from heaven fall, etc, then the coming in verse 30. Does the text support any of that, though?
------

Davidpt · Apr 26, 2026

The Op Continued

The Ai's concusions after it's thinking through these things have concluded:

Setting theological debates and eschatological systems aside, if we look strictly at the grammar, syntax, and logical flow of the text, no, the text does not support that interpretation. In fact, basic rules of language dictate the exact opposite.

To separate verses 15-21 from verse 29 by inserting a 2,000-year gap requires ignoring several built-in textual connectors that bind the entire passage together as a single, continuous timeline.

Here is the logical and grammatical breakdown of why that interpretive leap is unsupported by the text:

1. The Rule of the Antecedent ("Those Days")

In verse 29, the critical phrase is "those days" (ekénon tón héméron in Greek). In language, a demonstrative pronoun like "those" points backward to a specific, previously defined antecedent.

Look at the immediate chain of context:

Verse 21: "For then shall be great tribulation..."
Verse 22: "And except those days should be shortened..."
Verse 29: "Immediately after the tribulation of those days..."

For the interpreter to claim that "those days" in verse 29 refers to a different tribulation than the one in verse 21, they must ignore the fact that Jesus just used the exact same phrase ("those days") in verse 22 to explicitly refer to the great tribulation He just mentioned in verse 21. Grammatically, "those days" in verse 29 must refer to the exact same days being discussed in verses 21 and 22. There is no linguistic mechanism in the text to introduce a brand new, unrelated "those days" three verses later.

2. The Chronological Sequence of "Then" (Verses 23-26)

To place verses 23-26 after the timeline of verses 15-21 requires severing the word "Then" (tóte) from its immediate context.

Verse 21: "For then shall be great tribulation..."
Verse 23: "Then if any man shall say unto you..."

In narrative and prophetic flow, tóte (then) indicates the next logical step in the sequence. Jesus is saying: "The tribulation happens, the days are shortened, and in that exact context—then—false christs will arise."

If verses 23-26 were meant to describe a period 2,000 years later, the text would need a major structural shift (e.g., "And after many generations..."). Instead, it relies on sequential transitional words. Furthermore, verse 25 says, "Behold, I have told you before." This links the warning of verses 23-26 back to the earlier warnings in verses 4-5 and 11. The deception is a running theme throughout the whole period, not a new phase introduced thousands of years later.

3. The Contradiction of "Immediately"

The word translated "immediately" in verse 29 is euthéos. While scripture occasionally uses this word in a somewhat fluid sense to mean "soon" or "without delay," stretching euthéos to mean "2,000 years later" violates the plain semantic bounds of the word.

If I said, "Immediately after the thunderstorm, the sun came out," it creates a logical absurdity to claim, "By 'immediately,' I meant 20 years later." The word "immediately" exists specifically to prevent the insertion of large gaps. If a large gap were intended, the text would not use "immediately."

4. The Logical Dilemma Created by this View

The interpreter's view you described creates an unsolvable logical paradox within the text itself.

They argue:

Verses 15-21 = 70 AD (Tribulation A).
Verses 23-26 = The last 2,000 years (The Church Age).
Verse 29 = "Immediately after" Tribulation B (which they say happens at the end of the age).
Verse 30 = The Second Coming.

The Paradox: If verse 29 means "Immediately after [a future tribulation]," but verses 23-26 are describing the 2,000 years leading up to that future tribulation, then Jesus completely skipped over the events of verses 23-26 when defining the timeline of verse 29.

Look at the literary block:

Event A (Tribulation)
Event B (Deception happening "Then")
Event C ("Immediately after the tribulation...")

For the interpreter to be correct, the text would have to read: "Immediately after the tribulation [skipping over the deception I just mentioned in verses 23-26, which happens thousands of years later], the sun will be darkened." But that is not how the text is structured. Event C follows Event B, which follows Event A.
Conclusion

Logically and grammatically, the text reads as a single, unbroken narrative block:
An abomination happens -> you flee -> great tribulation occurs -> those days are shortened -> in that exact timeframe false christs will try to deceive you -> do not believe them because my coming will be obvious like lightning -> immediately after that tribulation you just fled from, the cosmos will be shaken -> and then I will return.

Whatever one concludes about the identity of the "abomination" or the timing of the Second Coming, the text itself forces you to take the whole block (vv. 15-30) as one contiguous unit. You cannot logically use the grammar of verses 15-21 to prove a 70 AD fulfillment, and then discard the grammar of verses 22-29 to push the conclusion 2,000 years into the future. The grammar that binds 15 to 21 is the exact same grammar that binds 21 to 29.
---------

Davidpt · Apr 26, 2026

The Op continued

----------------------
Me:

Wouldn't it be absurd then, thus not logical, if one takes the coming in verse 30 to be meaning the 2nd coming in the end of this age, but take verses 15-21 to be involving 70 AD? They use verses 16-20 as an argument that this proves 70 AD is meant, since no one would be doing those things in the 21st century. But the question is, as to verses 16-20, is the literal sense the only sense they can be understood in?
------

Davidpt · Apr 26, 2026

The Conclusion of the OP

--------------
The AI's conclusions following it's thinking through things first:

You have hit the nail directly on the head. To answer your first question directly: Yes, it is logically absurd to force a 2,000-year gap between verse 21 and verse 30 based on the text’s own grammar, while simultaneously using verses 16-20 as a strict proof-text for a 70 AD fulfillment.

As you noted, doing so requires the interpreter to employ a severe double standard. They must read verses 16-20 with rigid, hyper-literalism to lock the text into the first century, but then read the word "immediately" in verse 29 with extreme fluidity to unlock the text from the first century. Logically and hermeneutically, you cannot have it both ways.

To address your second question: No, the literal sense is absolutely not the only way verses 16-20 can be understood. In fact, forcing a strictly literal, 21st-century application onto them is what creates the interpreter's false dilemma in the first place.

Here is why verses 16-20 do not logically demand a 70 AD fulfillment, and how they function outside of a rigid literalism:

1. Cultural Idiom vs. Eternal Principle

Verses 16-20 are deeply steeped in 1st-century Near Eastern culture. When Jesus says, "Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house," He is using a cultural idiom, not establishing a literal rule for Christians in the 21st century.

In the first century, houses had flat roofs used as living spaces, accessed by external stairs.
To say "don't come down to get your cloak" was the exact equivalent of saying today, "Don't even go back inside the house to grab your wallet or your car keys."
The principle is urgent, unhesitating escape. The vehicle for that principle is first-century architecture. If an American pastor today says, "When the tornado hits, don't go back into the trailer to get your boots," no one assumes this prophecy only applies to people living in mobile homes.

2. The Sabbath as a Logistical Hindrance, not a Theological Rule

The interpreter's argument usually hinges heavily on verse 20: "Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath." They argue that because Christians don't observe the Jewish Sabbath in the modern era, this must be 70 AD.

This misses the historical logistics of the Sabbath. In the first century, closing the city gates on the Sabbath wasn't just a religious ritual; it was a municipal lockdown. Nehemiah 13:19 explicitly notes that the gates of Jerusalem were shut as soon as the evening shadows fell before the Sabbath, and they were not opened until after the Sabbath. Furthermore, "a Sabbath day's journey" (Acts 1:12) was legally restricted to roughly half a mile.

Therefore, fleeing on the Sabbath meant hitting a literal brick wall. Jesus is not telling His followers to keep the Sabbath; He is saying, "Pray you don't have to flee when the city is locked down and travel is legally restricted." Applied to any era, the principle is: "Pray you don't have to flee when the logistical conditions are completely against you" (e.g., "Pray it doesn't happen when the highways are gridlocked or the airports are shut down").

3. Prophetic Typology and Hyperbole

Jesus is drawing heavily on Old Testament prophetic language (specifically Daniel 9:27, 11:31, 12:1, and 1 Maccabees 2). In 167 BC, when the Greek tyrant Antiochus Epiphanes set up the "abomination of desolation" in the temple, faithful Jews literally fled to the mountains (1 Macc. 2:28).

Jesus is using a known historical type to describe a future antitype. Just as the original readers of Daniel understood the "fleeing to the mountains" as a template for escaping an invading army, Jesus' audience would understand He was describing the ultimate fulfillment of that template. The imagery of the mountains is a biblical metaphor for the place of refuge and safety from God's judgments (e.g., Revelation 12:6, 14).

The Logical Conclusion of the Interpreter's Method

If the interpreter demands that "housetops," "cloaks," and "Sabbaths" must be strictly literal to modern readers to be valid, then they must also demand that when Jesus says in verse 30, "all the tribes of the earth will mourn," they must strictly be wearing first-century Jewish sackcloth and ashes. But they don't do that.

The interpreter is making a category error. They are confusing the husk (the first-century cultural wrapping) with the seed (the underlying prophetic reality).

When you strip away the forced literalism of verses 16-20, you are left with a pure, logical sequence:

An abomination stands in the holy place.
Those in Judea must drop everything and flee immediately.
This triggers an unprecedented time of suffering (the great tribulation).
False messiahs will try to capitalize on the chaos.
Immediately after this specific period of suffering, the cosmos shakes, and the Son of Man returns.

Once you recognize that verses 16-20 are culturally wrapped descriptions of urgent flight, the artificial wall the interpreter built between verse 21 and verse 29 collapses entirely. The text flows exactly as the grammar dictates it should.
------------

Randy Kluth · Apr 26, 2026

Davidpt said:
----------------

Me, and how this session began:

Matthew 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
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.
25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
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:

Any theological debates aside. Verse 29 indicates---Immediately after the tribulation of those days. Some interpreters argue that it is not meaning the tribulation of days pertaining to verse 21. They also argue that verses 23-26 are not meaning during verses 15-21, but are meaning post that. And that this is where another tribulation of those days is meaning. Does the text logically support that conclusion?

The reason why they do this is this, these interpreters are not Preterists, yet align with Preterists concerning verses 15-21. Where they too apply that to 70 AD but then apply verse 30 to that of the 2nd coming in the end of this age.

And that immediately after the tribulation of those days is not meaning after verses 15-21, but is meaning after another tribulation of days that follow sometime after those.

Their view looks like comething like this. First, verses 15-21 are fulfilled in 70 AD. Then another tribulation of days follow, a global tribulation, not a local tribulation, and that it is immediately after this 2nd tribulation of days conclude some 2000 years later when the stars from heaven fall, etc, then the coming in verse 30. Does the text support any of that, though?
------

You are misusing the label "Preterist." The Church Fathers largely took the historical view that this passage involves the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD with the Jewish Dispersion that followed.

My own view, which is not Preterist, agrees with this, except I emphasize that the "Great Tribulation" being described is not merely the events of 70 AD, but much more, the entire tribulational period of the age for the Jewish People, which is, as Luke said, a "punishment."

The argument is given that the Great Tribulation is supposed to be Christian persecution, to which I say that Jesus defined the Great Tribulation as a "Jewish Punishment" that involved the Jews persecuting Christians initially and other nations persecuting Christians, as well. It was, in fact, Jewish persecution of Christ and Christians that brought on this great age-long punishment Jesus called "the Great Tribulation" of the Jewish People.

The AI is like to make presumptions based on historical interpretations in the modern era, and ignore the historical arguments unless specifically asked to provide those. If modern interpretations are wrong, based on errant assumptions, then the AI may call upon those same errant assumptions in providing their logical meaning.

Marty fox · Apr 27, 2026

Davidpt said:
The Conclusion of the OP

--------------
The AI's conclusions following it's thinking through things first:

You have hit the nail directly on the head. To answer your first question directly: Yes, it is logically absurd to force a 2,000-year gap between verse 21 and verse 30 based on the text’s own grammar, while simultaneously using verses 16-20 as a strict proof-text for a 70 AD fulfillment.

As you noted, doing so requires the interpreter to employ a severe double standard. They must read verses 16-20 with rigid, hyper-literalism to lock the text into the first century, but then read the word "immediately" in verse 29 with extreme fluidity to unlock the text from the first century. Logically and hermeneutically, you cannot have it both ways.

To address your second question: No, the literal sense is absolutely not the only way verses 16-20 can be understood. In fact, forcing a strictly literal, 21st-century application onto them is what creates the interpreter's false dilemma in the first place.

Here is why verses 16-20 do not logically demand a 70 AD fulfillment, and how they function outside of a rigid literalism:

1. Cultural Idiom vs. Eternal Principle

Verses 16-20 are deeply steeped in 1st-century Near Eastern culture. When Jesus says, "Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house," He is using a cultural idiom, not establishing a literal rule for Christians in the 21st century.

In the first century, houses had flat roofs used as living spaces, accessed by external stairs.
To say "don't come down to get your cloak" was the exact equivalent of saying today, "Don't even go back inside the house to grab your wallet or your car keys."
The principle is urgent, unhesitating escape. The vehicle for that principle is first-century architecture. If an American pastor today says, "When the tornado hits, don't go back into the trailer to get your boots," no one assumes this prophecy only applies to people living in mobile homes.

2. The Sabbath as a Logistical Hindrance, not a Theological Rule

The interpreter's argument usually hinges heavily on verse 20: "Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath." They argue that because Christians don't observe the Jewish Sabbath in the modern era, this must be 70 AD.

This misses the historical logistics of the Sabbath. In the first century, closing the city gates on the Sabbath wasn't just a religious ritual; it was a municipal lockdown. Nehemiah 13:19 explicitly notes that the gates of Jerusalem were shut as soon as the evening shadows fell before the Sabbath, and they were not opened until after the Sabbath. Furthermore, "a Sabbath day's journey" (Acts 1:12) was legally restricted to roughly half a mile.

Therefore, fleeing on the Sabbath meant hitting a literal brick wall. Jesus is not telling His followers to keep the Sabbath; He is saying, "Pray you don't have to flee when the city is locked down and travel is legally restricted." Applied to any era, the principle is: "Pray you don't have to flee when the logistical conditions are completely against you" (e.g., "Pray it doesn't happen when the highways are gridlocked or the airports are shut down").

3. Prophetic Typology and Hyperbole

Jesus is drawing heavily on Old Testament prophetic language (specifically Daniel 9:27, 11:31, 12:1, and 1 Maccabees 2). In 167 BC, when the Greek tyrant Antiochus Epiphanes set up the "abomination of desolation" in the temple, faithful Jews literally fled to the mountains (1 Macc. 2:28).

Jesus is using a known historical type to describe a future antitype. Just as the original readers of Daniel understood the "fleeing to the mountains" as a template for escaping an invading army, Jesus' audience would understand He was describing the ultimate fulfillment of that template. The imagery of the mountains is a biblical metaphor for the place of refuge and safety from God's judgments (e.g., Revelation 12:6, 14).

The Logical Conclusion of the Interpreter's Method

If the interpreter demands that "housetops," "cloaks," and "Sabbaths" must be strictly literal to modern readers to be valid, then they must also demand that when Jesus says in verse 30, "all the tribes of the earth will mourn," they must strictly be wearing first-century Jewish sackcloth and ashes. But they don't do that.

The interpreter is making a category error. They are confusing the husk (the first-century cultural wrapping) with the seed (the underlying prophetic reality).

When you strip away the forced literalism of verses 16-20, you are left with a pure, logical sequence:

An abomination stands in the holy place.
Those in Judea must drop everything and flee immediately.
This triggers an unprecedented time of suffering (the great tribulation).
False messiahs will try to capitalize on the chaos.
Immediately after this specific period of suffering, the cosmos shakes, and the Son of Man returns.

Once you recognize that verses 16-20 are culturally wrapped descriptions of urgent flight, the artificial wall the interpreter built between verse 21 and verse 29 collapses entirely. The text flows exactly as the grammar dictates it should.
------------

This is interesting about AI chatgpt

Marilyn C · Apr 27, 2026

Marty fox said:
This is interesting about AI chatgpt

AI is just a collection a different people`s opinions. It is not infallible. It just brings up what the computer has found around the internet.

Stumpmaster · Apr 27, 2026

Davidpt said:
The Op Continued

Davidpt · Apr 27, 2026

Randy Kluth said:
You are misusing the label "Preterist." The Church Fathers largely took the historical view that this passage involves the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD with the Jewish Dispersion that followed.

My own view, which is not Preterist, agrees with this, except I emphasize that the "Great Tribulation" being described is not merely the events of 70 AD, but much more, the entire tribulational period of the age for the Jewish People, which is, as Luke said, a "punishment."

The argument is given that the Great Tribulation is supposed to be Christian persecution, to which I say that Jesus defined the Great Tribulation as a "Jewish Punishment" that involved the Jews persecuting Christians initially and other nations persecuting Christians, as well. It was, in fact, Jewish persecution of Christ and Christians that brought on this great age-long punishment Jesus called "the Great Tribulation" of the Jewish People.

The AI is like to make presumptions based on historical interpretations in the modern era, and ignore the historical arguments unless specifically asked to provide those. If modern interpretations are wrong, based on errant assumptions, then the AI may call upon those same errant assumptions in providing their logical meaning.

What do you think I should label someone today that takes everything in the Discourse to be involving the first century leading up to 70 AD? Should I label them futurists? Would that make you happy? That doesn't mean they might be full Preterists. It means their view of the Discourse is Preterist throughout. Did you not read what I had said here? these interpreters are not Preterists, yet align with Preterists concerning verses 15-21

Be reasonable, any person taking the entire Discourse to be involving the first century leading up to 70 AD cannot be futurists. What is typically the opposite of futurists? Preterists. Unless you know of another label. There are literally some who take the entire Discourse to be involving the future, that none of it is involving the first century. What would you label them? Would it be incorrect to label them futurists?

But then there is another label that is valid, historicists, where neither of the 2 views I just mention fit. That's the label I would give to myself since my view of the Discourse is that everything is meaning what the church is expected to face while He is away, and then what happens when He returns. And that 70 AD was only part of it, not the main focus throughout. After all, you can't arrive at the 2nd coming in verse 30 without 70 AD having preceded it. The label historicist would also fit @Spiritual Israelite and maybe you as well

I think where you are misunderstanding what one means by the label 'preterist, some of us are are only applying that label to someone's reading of the Discourse, and not universally instead. @Marty fox might be a good example. Clearly, his reading of the Discourse cannot remotely fit a futurist reading nor an historicist reading. Therefore, the only option left, this makes his reading of the Discourse Preterist. Does this then mean he is a Preterist universally? Of course not, since he undeniably believes in a bodily return of Christ in the end of this age and that he can produce Scripture that supports that conclusion. He simply does not believe the Discourse has the bodily return of Christ in view. So when I use labels, such as Preterist, I'm applying that to their reading of something n particular, and am not applying it to them universally.

But my view is, it is Luke 21 that addresses 70 AD, not Matthew 24 nor Mark 13. And one reason I adamantly conclude that, is because of Matthew 24:29-30. And that verse 29--immediately after the tribulation of those days is undoubtedly meaning the tribulation of days pertaining to verses 15-21, where verses 23-26 are meaning during verses 15-21. Where verses 23-26 are meaning during when 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is meaning. And that I take verse 30 to be meaning the 2nd coming in the end of this age.

And when I connect the dots, since verses 23-26 can't fit 70 AD if they are involving 2 Thessalonians 2:4, and that that verse fits the final days of this age, and is clearly connected with something abominable, and that verse 30 is meaning the 2nd coming. This means verses 15-21 do not have 70 AD in view. Verse 29 proves it, and so do verses 23-26 prove it, in light of that verses 23-26 are involving when 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is meaning. And clearly, 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is involving a holy place that gets defiled, the holy place meant in Matthew 24:15. But that a literal temple is not meant.

Per this scenario, it would be absurd for me to take verses 15-21 to be involving 70 AD when 2000 years later is not immediately after anything. It would be like the analogy used by the AI---If I said, "Immediately after the thunderstorm, the sun came out," it creates a logical absurdity to claim, "By 'immediately,' I meant 20 years later." The word "immediately" exists specifically to prevent the insertion of large gaps. If a large gap were intended, the text would not use "immediately."

Keeping in mind, I'm meaning my view here. My view is what I have been describing in the 2 paragraphs prior to the last paragraph. And that my view might not be someone else's view.

Spiritual Israelite · Apr 27, 2026

Davidpt said:
Not meaning Chatgpt in this case.

Then tell us what AI you used for this. Why didn't you use ChatGPT this time? Were you not able to manipulate it to agree with your view?

Davidpt said:
My main opponent in lot of these threads involving subjects like this is mainly @Spiritual Israelite. Not that there are not others as well. Except he is the most vocal in regards to what I post pertaining to subjects like this. And besides, we at least have something in common concerning Matthew 24:30. We both agree it is involving the 2nd coming in the end of this age. But where we are miles apart is with verses 15-29.

Will you ever actually give an interpretation of Matthew 24:15-22 that actually makes sense? You can keep talking about this topic over and over again if you want, but until you give an interpretation of Matthew 24:15-22 that supports your belief that it should not be understood in a literal, physical sense then I see no reason to take your understanding of the passage seriously.

What you need to do is show what Judea represents spiritually or figuratively. And you need to do the same in regards to why Jesus said it would be particularly difficult for nursing mothers and pregnant women to flee and why He said they should pray that they would not have to flee during the winter or on the Sabbath.

Davidpt said:
@Spiritual Israelite interpretation of verses 15-30 is not the typical view of interpreters. It is a hybrid view that a small minority hold.

What was your reason for pointing this out? The majority is not always right, as I would assume you know. You hold to some minority views as well.

Davidpt said:
Everyone else pretty much hold a view like such. If verses 15-21 are involving 70 AD, then so is the coming meant in verse 30 involving 70 AD. If verse 30 is involving the final days of this age leading up to the 2nd coming, then so are verses 15-29 involving these same closing days of this age.

Let me point out that you say this despite not believing that Luke 21:20-28 all refers to the final days of this age leading up to the second coming, despite Luke 21:20-24 being a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-22. There's no consistency in the way you interpret things.

Davidpt said:
So I then posed the following in post# 2 for this AI to examine then present it's findings. And I did it in this case with @Spiritual Israelite in mind since he doesn't hold a typical view of verses 15-30. The following, beginning with post #2, is this exchange with that AI and that I will have to spread this out over multiple posts. Except I'm going to leave the AI's thinking process out of it since it will be plainly obvious as to why and how it is arriving at what is does.

The point is, in general, who is being logical throughout here. @Spiritual Israelite or this AI? BTW, my logic matches the AI's logic.

Here is your problem. You interpret scripture based on your own faulty human logic rather than using spiritual discernment from the Holy Spirit. I have to wonder if you've ever read 1 Corinthians 2:9-16. Why do you insist on interpreting scripture the way the natural man does, which results in the natural man thinking it is foolish?

Davidpt said:
I did not get my logic from the AI nor did it get it's logic via me. Yet our logic is basically the same pertaining to these verses in question. Plus, @Spiritual Israelite has been asking me for ages how verses 15-21 can not mean 70 AD, but is meaning the 21st century and is meaning spiritually rather than literally. The AI actually addresses and answers that at the end of the OP. One can either agree that it's answers are reasonable, or one can agree it's nonsensical instead. Either way, at least a solution is provided.

So, you claim that you don't rely on AI to interpret the scriptures for you and that you use it to help present your own view, yet here you are admitting that the view of Matthew 24:15-21 in your post comes from AI. So, it appears that you are being dishonest when you say you don't get your understanding from AI. It's clear to me that you do get your understanding from AI at least to some extent.

Spiritual Israelite · Apr 27, 2026

Davidpt said:
----------------

Me, and how this session began:

Matthew 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
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.
25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
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:

Any theological debates aside. Verse 29 indicates---Immediately after the tribulation of those days. Some interpreters argue that it is not meaning the tribulation of days pertaining to verse 21. They also argue that verses 23-26 are not meaning during verses 15-21, but are meaning post that. And that this is where another tribulation of those days is meaning. Does the text logically support that conclusion?

The reason why they do this is this, these interpreters are not Preterists, yet align with Preterists concerning verses 15-21. Where they too apply that to 70 AD but then apply verse 30 to that of the 2nd coming in the end of this age.

And that immediately after the tribulation of those days is not meaning after verses 15-21, but is meaning after another tribulation of days that follow sometime after those.

Their view looks like comething like this. First, verses 15-21 are fulfilled in 70 AD. Then another tribulation of days follow, a global tribulation, not a local tribulation, and that it is immediately after this 2nd tribulation of days conclude some 2000 years later when the stars from heaven fall, etc, then the coming in verse 30. Does the text support any of that, though?
------

The text definitely supports that because Matthew 24:15-21 is very clearly referring to local tribulation in Judea. That is, as you like to say, undeniably true. So, unless you want to be like preterists and falsely conclude that the future coming of the Son of man referred to a local event rather than a global one, you can only conclude that "the tribulation of those days" cannot refer to the local tribulation described in Matthew 24:15-21.

marks · Apr 27, 2026

Marty fox said:
This is interesting about AI chatgpt

I've concluded these things are true.

Much love!

Spiritual Israelite · Apr 27, 2026

Davidpt said:
The Conclusion of the OP

--------------
The AI's conclusions following it's thinking through things first:

You have hit the nail directly on the head. To answer your first question directly: Yes, it is logically absurd to force a 2,000-year gap between verse 21 and verse 30 based on the text’s own grammar, while simultaneously using verses 16-20 as a strict proof-text for a 70 AD fulfillment.

As you noted, doing so requires the interpreter to employ a severe double standard. They must read verses 16-20 with rigid, hyper-literalism to lock the text into the first century, but then read the word "immediately" in verse 29 with extreme fluidity to unlock the text from the first century. Logically and hermeneutically, you cannot have it both ways.

To address your second question: No, the literal sense is absolutely not the only way verses 16-20 can be understood. In fact, forcing a strictly literal, 21st-century application onto them is what creates the interpreter's false dilemma in the first place.

Here is why verses 16-20 do not logically demand a 70 AD fulfillment, and how they function outside of a rigid literalism:

1. Cultural Idiom vs. Eternal Principle

Verses 16-20 are deeply steeped in 1st-century Near Eastern culture. When Jesus says, "Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house," He is using a cultural idiom, not establishing a literal rule for Christians in the 21st century.

In the first century, houses had flat roofs used as living spaces, accessed by external stairs.
To say "don't come down to get your cloak" was the exact equivalent of saying today, "Don't even go back inside the house to grab your wallet or your car keys."
The principle is urgent, unhesitating escape. The vehicle for that principle is first-century architecture. If an American pastor today says, "When the tornado hits, don't go back into the trailer to get your boots," no one assumes this prophecy only applies to people living in mobile homes.

2. The Sabbath as a Logistical Hindrance, not a Theological Rule

The interpreter's argument usually hinges heavily on verse 20: "Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath." They argue that because Christians don't observe the Jewish Sabbath in the modern era, this must be 70 AD.

This misses the historical logistics of the Sabbath. In the first century, closing the city gates on the Sabbath wasn't just a religious ritual; it was a municipal lockdown. Nehemiah 13:19 explicitly notes that the gates of Jerusalem were shut as soon as the evening shadows fell before the Sabbath, and they were not opened until after the Sabbath. Furthermore, "a Sabbath day's journey" (Acts 1:12) was legally restricted to roughly half a mile.

Therefore, fleeing on the Sabbath meant hitting a literal brick wall. Jesus is not telling His followers to keep the Sabbath; He is saying, "Pray you don't have to flee when the city is locked down and travel is legally restricted." Applied to any era, the principle is: "Pray you don't have to flee when the logistical conditions are completely against you" (e.g., "Pray it doesn't happen when the highways are gridlocked or the airports are shut down").

3. Prophetic Typology and Hyperbole

Jesus is drawing heavily on Old Testament prophetic language (specifically Daniel 9:27, 11:31, 12:1, and 1 Maccabees 2). In 167 BC, when the Greek tyrant Antiochus Epiphanes set up the "abomination of desolation" in the temple, faithful Jews literally fled to the mountains (1 Macc. 2:28).

Jesus is using a known historical type to describe a future antitype. Just as the original readers of Daniel understood the "fleeing to the mountains" as a template for escaping an invading army, Jesus' audience would understand He was describing the ultimate fulfillment of that template. The imagery of the mountains is a biblical metaphor for the place of refuge and safety from God's judgments (e.g., Revelation 12:6, 14).

No mention here of what Judea would represent figuratively. No mention of why it would be particularly difficult for pregnant women and nursing mothers to flee. No mention of why it would be particularly difficult to flee during the winter. This argument presented by this faulty AI is extremely weak and unconvincing.

Davidpt said:
The Logical Conclusion of the Interpreter's Method

If the interpreter demands that "housetops," "cloaks," and "Sabbaths" must be strictly literal to modern readers to be valid, then they must also demand that when Jesus says in verse 30, "all the tribes of the earth will mourn," they must strictly be wearing first-century Jewish sackcloth and ashes. But they don't do that.

Such a dumb comment. No, if I believe something Jesus said was literal I am not required to believe that everything He said was literal. These arguments are comically weak.

Davidpt said:
The interpreter is making a category error. They are confusing the husk (the first-century cultural wrapping) with the seed (the underlying prophetic reality).

When you strip away the forced literalism of verses 16-20, you are left with a pure, logical sequence:

An abomination stands in the holy place.
Those in Judea must drop everything and flee immediately.
This triggers an unprecedented time of suffering (the great tribulation).
False messiahs will try to capitalize on the chaos.
Immediately after this specific period of suffering, the cosmos shakes, and the Son of Man returns.

Does this AI claim that Judea is the literal Judea? If so, does it understand that the second coming of Christ is a global event? Did it take any of this into consideration? Why would you think this AI knows anything when it is not a human and all it does is takes human opinions that it finds on the Internet and regurgitates them back to you?

Davidpt · Apr 27, 2026

Marty fox said:
This is interesting about AI chatgpt

I haven't looked at the video, but as to chatgpt, something about it has changed recently. All it wants to do is argue with you. I rarely engage with that now annoying chatbot anymore. There are other AIs that objectively reason through things, not argue with you about things throughout. That's the type of AIs I'm interested in engaging with, in order to test my own logic against the text, or to test someone else's logic against the text, since it is highly likely that the AI might have insight that we might not.

Spiritual Israelite · Apr 27, 2026

Davidpt said:
I haven't looked at the video, but as to chatgpt, something about it has changed recently. All it wants to do is argue with you. I rarely engage with that now annoying chatbot anymore.

LOL! So, you had to try to find one that you could manipulate to agree with you since you can't do that with ChatGPT anymore?

Davidpt said:
There are other AIs that objectively reason through things, not argue with you about things throughout.

AIs cannot reason! They are not human. Everything they say is based on views of human beings that it finds on the Internet. So, it does not reason as if it has a brain it can use to reason like humans do. It "reasons" based on info it finds on the Internet that may or may not be accurate or true.

Davidpt said:
That's the type of AIs I'm interested in engaging with, in order to test my own logic against the text, or to test someone else's logic against the text, since it is highly likely that the AI might have insight that we might not.

So, you're only interested in AIs that agree with you about everything, in other words. So much for reason. It's not reasonable that any AI would always agree with you. You need to give up on this AI nonsense and let the Holy Spirit teach you the truth from scripture instead.

Marty fox · Apr 27, 2026

Marilyn C said:
AI is just a collection a different people`s opinions. It is not infallible. It just brings up what the computer has found around the internet.

Sure but whose view is it and what could be behind those views. I'm not saying that this video is totally accurate, but it makes you think.

We always need to only rely on scripture.

marks · Apr 27, 2026

AI Models Will Sabotage And Blackmail Humans To Survive In New Tests. Should We Be Worried?

Recent tests on OpenAI and Anthropic's AI models show their drive for self-preservation.

www.huffpost.com

Davidpt · Apr 27, 2026

Spiritual Israelite said:
LOL! So, you had to try to find one that you could manipulate to agree with you since you can't do that with ChatGPT anymore?
.

I never manipulated it to agree with me to begin with. It simply listened to my arguments and at times found my arguments more compelling than the typical counter arguments. But Chatgpt has been upgraded several times recently, and that there is something profoundly different about it now vs how it was previously. Plus, keep in mind, most people do not use chatgpt to reason through Scriptures. Initially I didn't realize it could be used in that way. I was mainly using it for building me apps from scratch, and changing code in apps I already had by adding new features to the app, so on and so on. Except it is not going to argue with you, not even now, when it is being used for things like that.

Davidpt · Apr 27, 2026

Spiritual Israelite said:
Does this AI claim that Judea is the literal Judea? If so, does it understand that the second coming of Christ is a global event? Did it take any of this into consideration?

That's a fair qquestion. I never asked it that, but I think I will since it is obviously relevant. What I will do then, I will reingage with this AI by submitting what it said per post #5, then some of what you said in regard to what it said per post #5. Give me time to do that first, then let's go from there since you raise legit points that we can't just disregard, as if those points are not relevant or something.

Spiritual Israelite said:
Why would you think this AI knows anything when it is not a human and all it does is takes human opinions that it finds on the Internet and regurgitates them back to you?

Guess what, dude? I probably know way more about AI than you do. You clearly live in a bubble. Do you not even realize that an AI, for example, can build an entire app from scratch, that no other person has built before? Who do you think per the internet that it finds someone else that has built this same app and then regurgitates it back to you? So, while some of what you say is true in some cases, it's not always true in all cases. Yet you act as if an AI can't reason through anything on it's own. How then can it build an app from scratch that no one has ever built previously?

A recent exchange with a reasoning AI pertaining to Matthew 24:15-30

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Encounter Team

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