Understanding the Olivet Discourse

Davy · Jun 17, 2020

Randy Kluth said:
You simply separate out the good from the bad. They were very accomplished and studied Christians. And being much closer in time to Christ and to his apostles, they bear important testimony as to how they may be interpreted.

Oh, you mean you just discovered NOT ALL the early Church fathers just dumped Christ's Olivet discourse to be only for 70 A.D.? You're just now discovering that, like in those quotes I showed?

You need to get real and quit claiming that others pick n' choose when that's exactly what you have been doing with the quotes from 'some' of the early Church fathers that you selected to try and prove your Preterist theory against Christ's Olivet discourse.

Davy · Jun 17, 2020

Randy Kluth said:
There you go again--misrepresenting my arguments! I never said the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled with the 70 AD destruction! Do you even know my position? The O.D. indicated that after Christ was rejected the Jewish People would lose Jerusalem, and thus their religion, and would then go into an age-long dispersion. That means the O.D. is *not* fulfilled in 70 AD alone, but also in an age-long dispersion of the Jewish People!

What you said above is not difficult to realize your position, and that it's wrong.

The events of Christ's Olivet discourse was not fulfilled in any "age-long dispersion of the Jewish People". That is where you easily show you are stuck on a doctrine of men, because the Signs Jesus gave in His Olivet discourse ARE NOT for orthodox Jews! They are for HIS CHURCH. This is WHY the Signs Jesus gave in His Olivet discourse parallel the signs in the Seals of Revelation 6, which He gave to His Church through Apostle John! Weren't you paying attention in Matthew 24:1-3 who it was with Christ upon the Mount of Olives asking Him about His 2nd coming and the end of this world??? That was His disciples, the early foundation of His Church, asking Him that. How is it you act like you haven't read that?

Randy Kluth · Jun 17, 2020

Davy said:
What you said above is not difficult to realize your position, and that it's wrong.

You keep saying that, and yet I've repeatedly backed up my claim with Scripture, and you do not address that. So, if you're going to say I'm provably wrong, you must actually *prove it!* You must prove that I'm wrong that Luke 21 does *not* apply as I say, to the Jewish Diaspora!

Luke 21.20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

So rather than just repeat that I'm wrong, please show me where in the above passage it does *not* refer to the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem, leading to an age-long dispersion of the Jewish People? If you're just going to ignore this, then I'm going to start ignoring you!

Davy said:
The events of Christ's Olivet discourse was not fulfilled in any "age-long dispersion of the Jewish People". That is where you easily show you are stuck on a doctrine of men, because the Signs Jesus gave in His Olivet discourse ARE NOT for orthodox Jews! They are for HIS CHURCH. This is WHY the Signs Jesus gave in His Olivet discourse parallel the signs in the Seals of Revelation 6, which He gave to His Church through Apostle John! Weren't you paying attention in Matthew 24:1-3 who it was with Christ upon the Mount of Olives asking Him about His 2nd coming and the end of this world??? That was His disciples, the early foundation of His Church, asking Him that. How is it you act like you haven't read that?

I have read that, and I have never disputed that. To say that this was for Jesus' Church, but not for Jewish People, is odd. In reality, Jesus said this to his disciples who were *Jewish!* He was ministering while the Law was still in effect, and at that time, his ministry was primarily to Israel. The pattern was, Israel 1st, and then ministry to the Gentiles.

So what you've done is create a dichotomy between the Church and Israel when in reality, Jesus addressed Israel and the Church simultaneously. His ministry was primarily devoted to a *Jewish Church,* because at that time there was not yet any Gentile Church!

Consequently, Jesus was addrressing Israel, just as all the Prophets before him had. In reality, the Prophets also ministered to Gentile nations. But their primary mission was to Israel. And so, Jesus followed suit, ministering primarily to Israel, but also to Gentile nations secondarily.

Jesus obviously knew that Israel would largely reject him, with the exception of this small group of disciples and other scattered groups. And he knew he would reach out to other nations, just as God had initially reached out to Israel.

But never did this mean that the Olivet Discourse was a full on outreach to the Gentile nations before the call came to actually do so. The Great Commission followed the Cross--it did not come before the Cross!

So the Olivet Discourse outlined the future course of Israel's history, rejecting their Christ, and their ultimate collapse under the Roman government. And then, the Jewish People would be scattered into all nations, until the Kingdom of God came. Your failure to see these things is what has caused you to fall back into bad teaching that is prevalent in the Church.

Randy Kluth · Jun 17, 2020

Davy said:
Oh, you mean you just discovered NOT ALL the early Church fathers just dumped Christ's Olivet discourse to be only for 70 A.D.? You're just now discovering that, like in those quotes I showed?

You need to get real and quit claiming that others pick n' choose when that's exactly what you have been doing with the quotes from 'some' of the early Church fathers that you selected to try and prove your Preterist theory against Christ's Olivet discourse.

I did not pick and choose, hiding the exceptions. I've been arguing this for some time, and know that not all the Church Fathers agreed on everything. Quite the contrary. My purpose, as stated, was to show a *general consensus* among the Church Fathers on this subject. See my post in #153.

All you do is produce facts that I already know, that a couple of Church Fathers, Irenaeus and Hippolytus, held a different position on the 70th Week of Daniel. Cyril of Jerusalem and Origen may have held a similar view, but the point remains that a strong majority of the Church Fathers held to the historical view of Luke 21, and saw in this the dispersion of the Jews after 70 AD.

This means they held, as a general consensus, the Great Tribulation to be the Jewish Diaspora, and not the endtime reign of Antichrist. The fact that several of them believed the Abomination of Desolation was Antichrist does not kick the majority consensus down to a minority view!

Consider this link, where the author says: "Irenaeus and his pupil Hippolytus are the only two writers from the early Church period who believed in a still-future fulfillment of Daniel’s 70th week."
The Early Church Fathers and the Last Days of the Jewish Age

Now it may be true that some of the Church Fathers did not perfectly equate the 70th Week of Daniel with the Olivet Discourse. Accordingly, some like Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and a few others, misinterpreted the Abomination of Desolation to be the future Antichrist rather than as the 70th Week indicated--imminent judgment upon the Jews in 70 AD.

It remains that a logical view of the 70th Week would more properly interpret the AoD as the Roman siege of Jerusalem 66-70 AD. Some of the Church Fathers missed that, but the majority of them did not.

My thought is that the Church Fathers generally held to an historical fulfillment of the 70 Weeks prophecy, but that a few of them considered the 70th Week to be future, including Irenaeus and Hippolytus. This would've required them to separate off the 70th Week from the previous 69 Weeks--something that most of the Church Fathers *did not do!*

I might conclude, then, that those who saw a future 70th Week, among the Church Fathers, would likely have interpreted the Olivet Discourse as follows. The Abomination of Desolation would be Antichrist, but the Great Tribulation would be the dispersion of the Jewish People after 70 AD.

But virtually all of the Church Fathers held to an historical view of the 70 Weeks of Daniel, leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem and to the dispersion of the Jewish People, the "Great Tribulation." Only a relative few of them saw a future interpretation of the 70th Week, and a prophecy of the Antichrist.

This caused these few "outliers" among the Church Fathers to irrationally separate out the Abomination of Desolation as the Antichrist from the fall of Jerusalem mentioned in Dan 9. But logically, if the 70th Week of Daniel is tied to the Abomination of Desolation in 70 AD, it would have to have been tied to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and to the Great Tribulation of the Jewish People, taking place after 70 AD.

Timtofly · Jun 18, 2020

Randy Kluth said:
I did not pick and choose, hiding the exceptions. I've been arguing this for some time, and know that not all the Church Fathers agreed on everything. Quite the contrary. My purpose, as stated, was to show a *general consensus* among the Church Fathers on this subject. See my post in #153.

All you do is produce facts that I already know, that a couple of Church Fathers, Irenaeus and Hippolytus, held a different position on the 70th Week of Daniel. Cyril of Jerusalem and Origen may have held a similar view, but the point remains that a strong majority of the Church Fathers held to the historical view of Luke 21, and saw in this the dispersion of the Jews after 70 AD.

This means they held, as a general consensus, the Great Tribulation to be the Jewish Diaspora, and not the endtime reign of Antichrist. The fact that several of them believed the Abomination of Desolation was Antichrist does not kick the majority consensus down to a minority view!

Consider this link, where the author says: "Irenaeus and his pupil Hippolytus are the only two writers from the early Church period who believed in a still-future fulfillment of Daniel’s 70th week."
The Early Church Fathers and the Last Days of the Jewish Age

Now it may be true that some of the Church Fathers did not perfectly equate the 70th Week of Daniel with the Olivet Discourse. Accordingly, some like Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and a few others, misinterpreted the Abomination of Desolation to be the future Antichrist rather than as the 70th Week indicated--imminent judgment upon the Jews in 70 AD.

It remains that a logical view of the 70th Week would more properly interpret the AoD as the Roman siege of Jerusalem 66-70 AD. Some of the Church Fathers missed that, but the majority of them did not.

My thought is that the Church Fathers generally held to an historical fulfillment of the 70 Weeks prophecy, but that a few of them considered the 70th Week to be future, including Irenaeus and Hippolytus. This would've required them to separate off the 70th Week from the previous 69 Weeks--something that most of the Church Fathers *did not do!*

I might conclude, then, that those who saw a future 70th Week, among the Church Fathers, would likely have interpreted the Olivet Discourse as follows. The Abomination of Desolation would be Antichrist, but the Great Tribulation would be the dispersion of the Jewish People after 70 AD.

But virtually all of the Church Fathers held to an historical view of the 70 Weeks of Daniel, leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem and to the dispersion of the Jewish People, the "Great Tribulation." Only a relative few of them saw a future interpretation of the 70th Week, and a prophecy of the Antichrist.

This caused these few "outliers" among the Church Fathers to irrationally separate out the Abomination of Desolation as the Antichrist from the fall of Jerusalem mentioned in Dan 9. But logically, if the 70th Week of Daniel is tied to the Abomination of Desolation in 70 AD, it would have to have been tied to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and to the Great Tribulation of the Jewish People, taking place after 70 AD.

There was no peace treaty. There was no breaking the peace treaty. There was but an empty shell of a temple, that was rendered useless about 40 years prior. Nothing had been re-instated. The truth always lays with the minor opinion. But placing stock in human theology will always have it's pitfalls.

Besides the 70AD event was the total opposite of a diaspora. Titus used the Passover event in which millions of Jews all over the known world had gathered. It was a round up of all Jews in the empire, and then he slaughtered them all. There were Jews who had fled Jerusalem, but there were more Jews who came to Jerusalem than those who fled. Over the next 7 years, Titus hunted down and destroyed even those who had fled. That is the recorded historical facts. Any one trying to twist Daniel could have said the whole 7 years was the Great Tribulation, but it was not. John was still just getting the book of Revelation out to the seven churches. It would seem to me that Titus was so bent on squashing any Judean rebellion and slaughtering Jews, he did not have time to spend on the young church itself. While the young church was spreading out like a sunnammi away from Jerusalem across the Roman Empire, many Jews especially all those who rejected the Messiah, we're still fighting the Roman oppression. The Jews could have cared less about any fulfillment of Daniel. It had no effect on them, because they had not accepted any of the prophets their fathers had killed. The early Christians were watching the death throws of the very apostate nation of Israel that had just claimed the blood of Jesus on their own hands. Why would they equate this God’s wrath moment as fullfilling their own prophecied event? Only a few church fathers understood it was still the OT removal of a corrupt Sanhedren.

If there was a bandwagon of hatred against the Jews themselves and a claim that twisted any of the NT, which had not even been settled, it was not of God. It was false teachings subverting the new church, and attempting to side swipe the Gospel to snuff the message out, and make the church think they had missed the Second Coming.

Davy · Jun 18, 2020

Randy Kluth said:
You keep saying that, and yet I've repeatedly backed up my claim with Scripture, and you do not address that. So, if you're going to say I'm provably wrong, you must actually *prove it!* You must prove that I'm wrong that Luke 21 does *not* apply as I say, to the Jewish Diaspora!

Yet you have NOT proven your position.

Luke 21:20 -- the great tribulation timing for the end. Antichrist's armies surrounding Jerusalem, the last siege of Jerusalem that is prophesied in Daniel 11:31; Zechariah 14:2; Zephaniah 3:8; Joel 3:2; Revelation 16:14-16. The "desolation" that is coming here is by Christ's armies at the battle of Armageddon, which is why Antichrist's armies are gathered around Jerusalem. This is NEW information that the Matt.24 and Mark 13 versions didn't give. This is not about Christ's warning to flee because of the AOD. This is about the destruction that's coming there by Christ's coming.

Luke 21:21 -- the SAME warning Jesus gave in the Matt.24 and Mark 13 versions when the "abomination of desolation" idol is setup in Jerusalem by the Antichrist. But, this "desolation" is about the coming destruction of the Antichrist's armies by Christ getting ready to destroy those armies on the last day at His coming, which is what the battle of Armageddon is about in Rev.16. Those of Christ's servants in the countries are warned to not enter into that area of Jerusalem at that time.

Luke 21:22 -- Jesus gives the reason for that coming destruction, it's the "... days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." That's is NOT about the Romans coming to destroy Jerusalem in 70 A.D. That is not what the "days of vengeance" is about. The day Jesus is pointing to is His 2nd coming with the day God's cup of wrath is poured out per the 6th Seal, per Rev.19. This reference we know was given by The LORD in Isaiah 61:2 which in Luke 4 Jesus showed is about His future 2nd coming, because He closed the Book of Isaiah and didn't read that last Isaiah 61:2 "day of vengeance", simply because that is for the day of Christ's 2nd coming. And that phrase, "that all things which are written may be fulfilled" is a DIRECT pointer to that last day also.

Luke 21:23 -- the woe to those with child is a spiritual analogy. Jesus gave that parable from Isaiah 54 to the women of Jerusalem that cried while He was going to be crucified, per Luke 23:27-30. Blessed are the barren is about those whose wombs never gave suck, meaning they were not with child. Child birth is a blessing from God, so this is not literally about pregnant women during a time of God's wrath. This is a Message for the end, when the Antichrist sets himself up as God in Jerusalem in our near future.

Luke 21:24 -- sounds like it's the Jewish Diaspora, but what's that Jerusalem being trodden down by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles is fulfilled? We were shown in Revelation 11:1-2 about another temple built in Jerusalem for the end on the 6th trumpet - 2nd woe period, with the Gentiles treading the holy city for 42 months at the end of this world. You will simply say it's a reference to how the Romans sacked Jerusalem in 70 A.D., and with the Muslims building their Dome of the Rock, and possessing half of Jerusalem. Those are only 'types' for this future event at the very end of this world. Christ's Signs in His Olivet discourse are about the Signs He gave in His Book of Revelation to the Church.

Luke 21:25-27 -- all direct statements of the time of the very end with the day of Christ's 2nd coming.

There. I just covered what those Luke 21 verses are REALLY about. They point directly to the SAME subject Jesus covered in His other Olivet discourse versions of Matthew 24 and Mark 13, i.e., the days of His 2nd coming and of the end of the world. If you don't like this, then go argue with someone else because the Scripture is very, very clear what timing Jesus was showing there.

Randy Kluth · Jun 19, 2020

Davy said:
Yet you have NOT proven your position.

Luke 21:20 -- the great tribulation timing for the end. Antichrist's armies surrounding Jerusalem, the last siege of Jerusalem that is prophesied in Daniel 11:31; Zechariah 14:2; Zephaniah 3:8; Joel 3:2; Revelation 16:14-16. The "desolation" that is coming here is by Christ's armies at the battle of Armageddon, which is why Antichrist's armies are gathered around Jerusalem. This is NEW information that the Matt.24 and Mark 13 versions didn't give. This is not about Christ's warning to flee because of the AOD. This is about the destruction that's coming there by Christ's coming.

Luke 21:21 -- the SAME warning Jesus gave in the Matt.24 and Mark 13 versions when the "abomination of desolation" idol is setup in Jerusalem by the Antichrist. But, this "desolation" is about the coming destruction of the Antichrist's armies by Christ getting ready to destroy those armies on the last day at His coming, which is what the battle of Armageddon is about in Rev.16. Those of Christ's servants in the countries are warned to not enter into that area of Jerusalem at that time.

Luke 21:22 -- Jesus gives the reason for that coming destruction, it's the "... days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." That's is NOT about the Romans coming to destroy Jerusalem in 70 A.D. That is not what the "days of vengeance" is about. The day Jesus is pointing to is His 2nd coming with the day God's cup of wrath is poured out per the 6th Seal, per Rev.19. This reference we know was given by The LORD in Isaiah 61:2 which in Luke 4 Jesus showed is about His future 2nd coming, because He closed the Book of Isaiah and didn't read that last Isaiah 61:2 "day of vengeance", simply because that is for the day of Christ's 2nd coming. And that phrase, "that all things which are written may be fulfilled" is a DIRECT pointer to that last day also.

Luke 21:23 -- the woe to those with child is a spiritual analogy. Jesus gave that parable from Isaiah 54 to the women of Jerusalem that cried while He was going to be crucified, per Luke 23:27-30. Blessed are the barren is about those whose wombs never gave suck, meaning they were not with child. Child birth is a blessing from God, so this is not literally about pregnant women during a time of God's wrath. This is a Message for the end, when the Antichrist sets himself up as God in Jerusalem in our near future.

Luke 21:24 -- sounds like it's the Jewish Diaspora, but what's that Jerusalem being trodden down by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles is fulfilled? We were shown in Revelation 11:1-2 about another temple built in Jerusalem for the end on the 6th trumpet - 2nd woe period, with the Gentiles treading the holy city for 42 months at the end of this world. You will simply say it's a reference to how the Romans sacked Jerusalem in 70 A.D., and with the Muslims building their Dome of the Rock, and possessing half of Jerusalem. Those are only 'types' for this future event at the very end of this world. Christ's Signs in His Olivet discourse are about the Signs He gave in His Book of Revelation to the Church.

Luke 21:25-27 -- all direct statements of the time of the very end with the day of Christ's 2nd coming.

There. I just covered what those Luke 21 verses are REALLY about. They point directly to the SAME subject Jesus covered in His other Olivet discourse versions of Matthew 24 and Mark 13, i.e., the days of His 2nd coming and of the end of the world. If you don't like this, then go argue with someone else because the Scripture is very, very clear what timing Jesus was showing there.

That is about as clear as mud! There is nothing in Luke 21 that presents Antichrist. Jesus was telling his Disciples what *they* would go through--not referring to many generations later that they had nothing to do with.

The way you dispose of Sabbath and the paraphernalia of Jesus' own time is astounding. The whole address had to do with the destruction of the temple *in his generation!*

It's like I describe a nose, a mouth, ears and a head, and you say that it's a tree. But at least you've addressed the subject. Let it be known that many Bible commentators would disagree with you.

What some do, to get around the obvious, is just say that it does indeed refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, but presents a dualism, using Jesus' day to project into the future a future generation with Antichrist. But this isn't interpretation for me--it's rationalization.

Randy Kluth · Jun 19, 2020

Timtofly said:
There was no peace treaty. There was no breaking the peace treaty. There was but an empty shell of a temple, that was rendered useless about 40 years prior. Nothing had been re-instated. The truth always lays with the minor opinion. But placing stock in human theology will always have it's pitfalls.

It depends on where you draw your majority from? If you take a majority of the twelve disciples of Jesus, they would be right--not wrong!

I have no idea why you're talking about a "peace treaty?" I never said anything about a peace treaty! I don't, like so many, believe that the Antichrist will make a peace treaty with anybody.

Timtofly said:
Besides the 70AD event was the total opposite of a diaspora. Titus used the Passover event in which millions of Jews all over the known world had gathered. It was a round up of all Jews in the empire, and then he slaughtered them all. There were Jews who had fled Jerusalem, but there were more Jews who came to Jerusalem than those who fled. Over the next 7 years, Titus hunted down and destroyed even those who had fled. That is the recorded historical facts. Any one trying to twist Daniel could have said the whole 7 years was the Great Tribulation, but it was not. John was still just getting the book of Revelation out to the seven churches.

I never said the 70 AD war was the "Great Tribulation." I don't know why you're arguing this with me? I believe the Great Tribulation only started in 70 AD, and continues until the end of the age. That's what Luke 21 says.

Timtofly said:
It would seem to me that Titus was so bent on squashing any Judean rebellion and slaughtering Jews, he did not have time to spend on the young church itself. While the young church was spreading out like a sunnammi away from Jerusalem across the Roman Empire, many Jews especially all those who rejected the Messiah, we're still fighting the Roman oppression. The Jews could have cared less about any fulfillment of Daniel. It had no effect on them, because they had not accepted any of the prophets their fathers had killed. The early Christians were watching the death throws of the very apostate nation of Israel that had just claimed the blood of Jesus on their own hands. Why would they equate this God’s wrath moment as fullfilling their own prophecied event? Only a few church fathers understood it was still the OT removal of a corrupt Sanhedren.

I wasn't saying that the Jewish majority would accept Jesus' Gospel. But the Gospel was, in fact, offered to them. Then, after they rejected the Gospel, Jesus turned to his disciples and told them about the future of their people, and about how the ultimate fulfillment of God's promises will come about. The Great Tribulation would provide opportunity for the survival of the Jewish People in the same way that the wilderness experience kept Israel alive after the Exodus. Ultimately, a generation would experience the fulfillment of God's promises concerning the nation.

Timtofly said:
If there was a bandwagon of hatred against the Jews themselves and a claim that twisted any of the NT, which had not even been settled, it was not of God. It was false teachings subverting the new church, and attempting to side swipe the Gospel to snuff the message out, and make the church think they had missed the Second Coming.

I don't really understand this last bit. Sorry.

Timtofly · Jun 19, 2020

Randy Kluth said:
It depends on where you draw your majority from? If you take a majority of the twelve disciples of Jesus, they would be right--not wrong!
I have no idea why you're talking about a "peace treaty?" I never said anything about a peace treaty! I don't, like so many, believe that the Antichrist will make a peace treaty with anybody.
I never said the 70 AD war was the "Great Tribulation." I don't know why you're arguing this with me? I believe the Great Tribulation only started in 70 AD, and continues until the end of the age. That's what Luke 21 says.
I wasn't saying that the Jewish majority would accept Jesus' Gospel. But the Gospel was, in fact, offered to them. Then, after they rejected the Gospel, Jesus turned to his disciples and told them about the future of their people, and about how the ultimate fulfillment of God's promises will come about. The Great Tribulation would provide opportunity for the survival of the Jewish People in the same way that the wilderness experience kept Israel alive after the Exodus. Ultimately, a generation would experience the fulfillment of God's promises concerning the nation.
I don't really understand this last bit. Sorry.

If the Great Tribulation started in 70AD, it started in 70AD. Are you refuting your own point? Any tribulation mentioned in Revelation did not start in 70AD. If you apply a tribulation from the Olivet Discourse, to 70AD, it can also apply to a future time, but you cannot apply Revelation after the fact.
Nor can there be a 1900 year tribulation. A tribulation for Jews only, could have been in 70AD. Just as easily could the 40 years after the death and resurrection still be considered the 69th week. The Hebrews did spend 40 years between Egypt and Canaan, to kill off a disbelieving generation. That there was 40 years between the Atonement and the destruction to kill off a generation of unbelieving Jews would be removing the generation of the Jews who crucified Christ. It was still all the same end to the 69th week of Daniel.

Not to mention the Great Tribulation is referring to just the 3.5 years of Satan. Many times of tribulation come and go, just like antichrists come and go. The last antichrist is just Satan himself. Revelation 6 says 2 billion people die, immediately before the rapture. Four different factors, show a time of tribulation. Who dies, is not specified. So just after the tribulation of those days, not 1900 years, is scripture.

There may have been 2 billion people to die in the last 1900 years, but it says "days" not "years". Not many can see the last 1900 years as just a long tribulation. Perhaps now since a lot think the earth is 4 billion years (a lie). However in context of the Bible, and literal finite time periods, when it says days, that is not figurative. When 2 billion die, it will be shorter than either of the 2 Great Wars, because it will be God directing in prophecy, not just humans fighting other humans.

The last 1900 years can only be the church age, not a tribulation period. Also many times of tribulation instead of one long time.

Enoch111 · Jun 19, 2020

Timtofly said:
If the Great Tribulation started in 70AD, it started in 70AD.

If anyone believes this nonsense, it's a lost cause. You can argue till the cows come home, but it will not make an iota of difference.

Jesus said that the Great Tribulation would be a TOTALLY UNIQUE EVENT. One which has never occurred and will never occur again.

Timtofly · Jun 19, 2020

Enoch111 said:
If anyone believes this nonsense, it's a lost cause. You can argue till the cows come home, but it will not make an iota of difference.

Jesus said that the Great Tribulation would be a TOTALLY UNIQUE EVENT. One which has never occurred and will never occur again.

That it never happens would be better yet!!!

Randy Kluth · Jun 20, 2020

Timtofly said:
If the Great Tribulation started in 70AD, it started in 70AD. Are you refuting your own point? Any tribulation mentioned in Revelation did not start in 70AD. If you apply a tribulation from the Olivet Discourse, to 70AD, it can also apply to a future time, but you cannot apply Revelation after the fact.
Nor can there be a 1900 year tribulation. A tribulation for Jews only, could have been in 70AD. Just as easily could the 40 years after the death and resurrection still be considered the 69th week. The Hebrews did spend 40 years between Egypt and Canaan, to kill off a disbelieving generation. That there was 40 years between the Atonement and the destruction to kill off a generation of unbelieving Jews would be removing the generation of the Jews who crucified Christ. It was still all the same end to the 69th week of Daniel.

Not to mention the Great Tribulation is referring to just the 3.5 years of Satan. Many times of tribulation come and go, just like antichrists come and go. The last antichrist is just Satan himself. Revelation 6 says 2 billion people die, immediately before the rapture. Four different factors, show a time of tribulation. Who dies, is not specified. So just after the tribulation of those days, not 1900 years, is scripture.

There may have been 2 billion people to die in the last 1900 years, but it says "days" not "years". Not many can see the last 1900 years as just a long tribulation. Perhaps now since a lot think the earth is 4 billion years (a lie). However in context of the Bible, and literal finite time periods, when it says days, that is not figurative. When 2 billion die, it will be shorter than either of the 2 Great Wars, because it will be God directing in prophecy, not just humans fighting other humans.

The last 1900 years can only be the church age, not a tribulation period. Also many times of tribulation instead of one long time.

I disagree. Leaving aside the matter of the 70th Week I must say, you seem to completely miss the import of my belief! I said the Tribulation of the Jewish People began in 70 AD and ends at the 2nd Coming. That is precisely what Luke 21.24 says! That's exactly how long Israel has been in Diaspora. How can this *not* be a Tribulation of the Jewish People? This is how long they've lost their status as the Chosen Nation, or the People of God! One day they will be back to join many Christian nations as the international People of God!

Timtofly · Jun 20, 2020

Randy Kluth said:
I disagree. Leaving aside the matter of the 70th Week I must say, you seem to completely miss the import of my belief! I said the Tribulation of the Jewish People began in 70 AD and ends at the 2nd Coming. That is precisely what Luke 21.24 says! That's exactly how long Israel has been in Diaspora. How can this *not* be a Tribulation of the Jewish People? This is how long they've lost their status as the Chosen Nation, or the People of God! One day they will be back to join many Christian nations as the international People of God!

If making lots of money and blessing many nations is a tribulation period, when the church has had to struggle, is the 1000 year reign of Christ the tribulation period of the church?

Randy Kluth · Jun 20, 2020

Timtofly said:
If making lots of money and blessing many nations is a tribulation period, when the church has had to struggle, is the 1000 year reign of Christ the tribulation period of the church?

That is disgusting! Do you even know the history of the Jewish People over the last 2000 years?

Timtofly · Jun 21, 2020

Randy Kluth said:
That is disgusting! Do you even know the history of the Jewish People over the last 2000 years?

Just pointing out that persecution makes one stronger, and some miss the point where the Hebrews have blessed many Nations. It is disgusting because being sarcastic is not a great way to make a point. Not seeing history, is also the best way to keep repeating the disgusting parts over and over again...

Davy · Nov 15, 2020

Enoch111 said:
If anyone believes this nonsense, it's a lost cause. You can argue till the cows come home, but it will not make an iota of difference.

Jesus said that the Great Tribulation would be a TOTALLY UNIQUE EVENT. One which has never occurred and will never occur again.

Enoch111 is a deceiver, because he believes man's false Pre-trib Rapture theory, and those on that false doctrine of men oppose Christ's Olivet discourse of Matthew 24; Mark 13; and Luke 21. The reason why deceivers do that is because they instead believe on man's tradition that Jesus is going to come in secret prior to the tribulation, and rapture His Church out, which of course is not written anywhere... in God's Word!

Enoch111 · Nov 15, 2020

Davy said:
Enoch111 is a deceiver, because he believes man's false Pre-trib Rapture theory, and those on that false doctrine of men oppose Christ's Olivet discourse of Matthew 24; Mark 13; and Luke 21.

It is evident that since you do not really understand the Olivet Discourse, you cannot possibly understand the Pre-Tribulation Rapture. And since the Lord Jesus Christ Himself taught the Pre-Tribulation Rapture, He has exposed you as the deceiver.

The Rapture is presented in Scripture as an event that is IMMINENT. It has no connection to the Tribulation or the Great Tribulation. And the rapture of Enoch BEFORE the Flood prefigured the Rapture of the Church before the tribulation period (which is a unique event in human history).

THE TRIBULATION: TOTALLY UNIQUE
And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a Time of Trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. (Dan 12:1)

THE GREAT TRIBULATION: TOTALLY UNIQUE
For then shall be [The] Great Tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. (Mt 24:21) [Note: Rev 7:14 calls it in Greek "The Tribulation, the Great" which translates into The Great Tribulation]

Timtofly · Nov 15, 2020

Davy said:
Enoch111 is a deceiver, because he believes man's false Pre-trib Rapture theory, and those on that false doctrine of men oppose Christ's Olivet discourse of Matthew 24; Mark 13; and Luke 21. The reason why deceivers do that is because they instead believe on man's tradition that Jesus is going to come in secret prior to the tribulation, and rapture His Church out, which of course is not written anywhere... in God's Word!

Since it is not a secret event that seems like a malicious attack on God's Word. Can you define the rapture in Revelation?

The simple fact that Jesus says He is coming is proof of a rapture, because it happens the first time He appears.

Jay Ross · Nov 16, 2020

Timtofly said:
Since it is not a secret event that seems like a malicious attack on God's Word. Can you define the rapture in Revelation?

The simple fact that Jesus says He is coming is proof of a rapture, because it happens the first time He appears.

The question that is not answered correctly is when does Jesus return with all of the heavenly hosts such that We the Righteous, will rise up into the air to meet Him?

Is this a near future event which the Pre-Trib advocates hold faithfully to?

Or

Is this a distant future event which the Post-trib advocates hold faithfully to?

The confusion comes, I believe, because of our flawed understanding of End Times Prophecy.

In Rev 16, we have already experienced the Seventh Bowl Judgement. We are presently experiencing the sixth bowl judgement which still has around 25 years or so to run.

With the completion of the sixth bowl judgement, then will be a period of 1,000 years where their will be no direct demonic influence occurring on the face of the earth, except for Satan's Good and Faithful servants.

Many people can see and identify by people groups, kingdoms, and Empires, the manifestations of the demonic influences that have risen and fallen during the history of mankind, but fail to see or know the entities and sources of the demonic influences within the world.

I wonder when the People who call themselves righteous will begin to understand the timeline of God's Ent Time Plan.

Shalom

Timtofly · Nov 16, 2020

Jay Ross said:
The question that is not answered correctly is when does Jesus return with all of the heavenly hosts such that We the Righteous, will rise up into the air to meet Him?

Is this a near future event which the Pre-Trib advocates hold faithfully to?

Or

Is this a distant future event which the Post-trib advocates hold faithfully to?

The confusion comes, I believe, because of our flawed understanding of End Times Prophecy.

In Rev 16, we have already experienced the Seventh Bowl Judgement. We are presently experiencing the sixth bowl judgement which still has around 25 years or so to run.

With the completion of the sixth bowl judgement, then will be a period of 1,000 years where their will be no direct demonic influence occurring on the face of the earth, except for Satan's Good and Faithful servants.

Many people can see and identify by people groups, kingdoms, and Empires, the manifestations of the demonic influences that have risen and fallen during the history of mankind, but fail to see or know the entities and sources of the demonic influences within the world.

I wonder when the People who call themselves righteous will begin to understand the timeline of God's Ent Time Plan.

Shalom

Sorry, but the 7 vials do not happen until the end of Satan's 42 months. They are poured out while the 2 witnesses lay on the streets of Jerusalem for 3.5 days. The final ones bring 10 kings for the 1 hour battle about 11 hours after the 2 witnesses return to heaven. This is the battle of Armageddon.

We are patiently waiting the the 4th seal to open.

Understanding the Olivet Discourse

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