70 AD revisited

[Eternally Grateful]

70 AD was the end of the age. They're speaking of the same time.

no

70 AD was the answer to the first question

the disciples asked 3 questions

1. When will these things be (no stone will be left on another) 70 AD
2. When will be the end of the age
3. When will be the time of your coming.

Matt 24: 3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

 

[covenantee]

Matthew says the abomination in the temple is a sign to flee, but Luke says the armies surrounding the city is a sign to flee.

Matthew does not mention an abomination in the temple. The abomination was in the holy place, which was Jerusalem, the holy city. Matthew and Luke are corroborative.

 

[covenantee]

You will have to explain yourself to Jesus one day. I would worry about that.

We are fine.. We will gladly praise Jesus for keeping his word and his promise

Jesus did the explaining. Nothing to worry about.

 

[Freedm]

no

70 AD was the answer to the first question

the disciples asked 3 questions

1. When will these things be (no stone will be left on another) 70 AD
2. When will be the end of the age
3. When will be the time of your coming.

Matt 24: 3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

It was also the answer to the second and third question. In fact, Jesus wrapped them all up together when he said "Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. "

He said "all these things" would happen before the end of the generation.

 

[Timtofly]

They're not my metric. They're Jesus' metric.

Have you told Him that He got His metric wrong?

Jesus never said the Roman armies are the AoD. That is your own Scripture.

Jesus said the armies would be the desolation of, not the AoD as mentioned in Daniel. Jesus could have been talking about the armies of the revolting Jews.

 

[Timtofly]

Jesus did the explaining. Nothing to worry about.

Jesus said that it was already in process. They had already been left desolate even before the Cross. You are just decades behind schedule.

 

[covenantee]

Jesus never said the Roman armies are the AoD. That is your own Scripture.

Jesus said the armies would be the desolation of, not the AoD as mentioned in Daniel. Jesus could have been talking about the armies of the revolting Jews.

The revolting Jews were not an abomination to the Jews. The Romans were.

The Romans alone qualified as the abomination of desolation.

 

[Freedm]

Here's an interesting tidbit from Josephus, wars of the Jews, book 6, chapter 5, section 4, where he explains that the primary reason the zealots rebelled, was their belief that it was time for their king to rule the world.

Now if any one consider these things, he will find that God takes care of mankind, and by all ways possible foreshows to our race what is for their preservation; but that men perish by those miseries which they madly and voluntarily bring upon themselves; for the Jews, by demolishing the tower of Antonia, had made their temple four-square, while at the same time they had it written in their sacred oracles, "That then should their city be taken, as well as their holy house, when once their temple should become four-square." But now, what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how," about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth."

See, the zealots believed that "about that time" their king would arrive, from within the Jewish people, to rule the world. They likely believed that king to be one of themselves, but in reality, this was likely a prophecy of the return of Jesus, and the establishment of his kingdom on earth. And if this prophecy was speaking of Jesus, then it was indeed fulfilled at "about that time", but not in the way they imagined it. Just like the Jews 40 years earlier, they made the mistake of thinking their saviour would be a fleshly king, sitting on a throne in Jerusalem.

 

[covenantee]

Jesus said that it was already in process. They had already been left desolate even before the Cross. You are just decades behind schedule.

What are "it" and "They"?

You don't have a schedule.

 

[Timtofly]

The revolting Jews were not an abomination to the Jews. The Romans were.

The Romans alone qualified as the abomination of desolation.

You originally said Jerusalem was the holy place. Now you say the Jews themselves are the holy place. Why did Jesus call them a generation of vipers if they were holy? They were a generation of vipers because they would desecrate their own Temple.

You really need to go back and read Josephus to get your facts straight. No NT author backs up your claims.

And if you insist it was the Roman Army, then that already happened when Herod built the Roman soldiers their own headquarters in Jerusalem, before Jesus was even baptized.

 

[covenantee]

Now you say the Jews themselves are the holy place.

When are you going to wean yourself off hallucinogens?

Link to any post in which I've said "the Jews themselves are the holy place."

Beyond absurd.

 

[Timtofly]

When are you going to wean yourself off hallucinogens?

Link to any post in which I've said "the Jews themselves are the holy place."

Beyond absurd.

The revolting Jews were not an abomination to the Jews. The Romans were.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

It was also the answer to the second and third question. In fact, Jesus wrapped them all up together when he said "Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. "

He said "all these things" would happen before the end of the generation.

That could be taken different ways

this generation (the generation living at the time)

please not even the birth pangs could go on for years.. and they had not happened, yet. Nor the great tribulation. Still to this day has not happened..

So that generation did not witness any of the events (maybe some of them did the 70 AD.)

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That's not actually what Paul said, though. He was defining, Who is Israel? Not all of Abraham's children, only the one of promise. And not all of Isaac's children, only the one of election. He goes on to talk about the rement who will be saved. How Israel tried to be righteous by the Law, instead of faith.

In Romans 9:6-8, which is what I referenced, he wasn't just defining who is Israel. He was also defining who is not Israel. He said " For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel". So, he was speaking of two Israels here. That's the only way to make sense of what he said. He also said "Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children" and " In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children". So, he was clearly talking about an Israel of which those who were part of it were not part of it because of anything physical. Being a physical descendant of Abraham and the nation of Israel did not make someone part of the Israel of Paul said not all who are physically descended from the nation of Israel are part.

So, with that being said, I'm not sure why you would deny that Paul spoke of an "Israel besides the physical nation of Israel that is entirely spiritual in nature", as I had said.

And like Paul taught, God can have mercy and can harden, He blinded part of Israel, but the time would come that all of Israel would be saved.

Not all of the physical nation of Israel. That would contradict him having pointed out that being a physical descendant is not a determining factor in being part of the Israel of which not all who are physically descended from Israel are part. It is only those who are the spiritual children of Abraham, of God and of the promise who are counted as being part of the Israel of which all are, all are being and all will be saved.

And throughout this entire passage he continues to contrast Israel and the gentiles, including saved gentiles.

In short, these chapters 9-11 address, among other things, how God's promises to Israel are still valid, and that God considers the true Israel to be the Israelites who believe, who are of faith, as are we gentiles.

So, we agree, after all? What is going on here? You seemed to go from being completely off base about what Paul was writing in Romans 9 to completley spot on here. What gives? Would you agree then that when Paul said "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel" he was saying not all who are physically descended from the nation of Israel are true Israel? And would you agree that the basis for being part of true Israel is not anything physical but rather is based on faith?

But at no time does Paul blend gentiles and Israel into a spiritual Israel. He maintains the contrast throughout.

And, now you've gone off track again. No, he contrasts people with faith with those who do not have faith. If you continue reading into Romans 10 and 11 you can see that he talks about Israelite and Gentiles believers coming together as one like he does in his other letters.

Romans 10:10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Paul said "there is no difference between Jew and Gentile, so why are you trying to make a difference between them? Why would you want to keep separate what Jesus has brought together as one? There is no basis for seeing two separate groups of God's people. There is one and it's all who belong to Christ regardless of whether they are Jew or Gentile. Paul went on to show in Romans 11 how Jew and Gentile believers are grafted in together in the good olive tree. There is no basis for trying to keep Jews and Gentiles separate when scripture continually talks about how they have been brought together as one by the blood of Christ.

Also, Romans 9:6-8 refers to those of true Israel as being called through Isaac, as being the children of God and children of the promise. What else did Paul write about who are called through Isaac and who are the children of God and children of the promise?

Galatians 3:26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Galatians 4:28 Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise.

In these passages, Paul includes Gentile believers when using the same terms he used in Romans 9:6-8 to describe true Israel. So, with that being the case, why would you deny that Gentile believers are also part of true Israel? It has nothing to do with anything physical, as Paul made clear in Romans 9:6-8, so why do you make it as if it does?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Can I chime in?

I believe you are making an important point here, so I want to highlight it a bit more. You spoke about "2 AoD's in Daniel" and so let's compare the two.

Daniel 9:27
"and on the wing of abominations (plural) will come one who makes desolate

Daniel 11:31
"And they will set up the abomination (singular) of desolation."

Matthew 24:15
“Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),

In the first instance, the passage speaks about multiple desolations, which signal the arrival of a desolating person upon reaching a limit. It's as if God allows multiple offenses to go unanswered until, for his reasons, he decides to punish those who commit them. In this instance, God brings a Roman general to Jerusalem as a means of punishment.

In the second instance, an unauthorized person sets up an abominable thing in the temple, causing the temple to be defiled (desolated).

Do you know which passage in Daniel Jesus was referring to? Based on his use of the singular form of "Abomination," it seems likely that he was referring to Daniel 11:31. However, this passage had already been fulfilled over 200 years before Jesus began his public ministry. Therefore, it seems that Jesus wanted his readers to study Daniel 11:31, draw conclusions from it, and use that information to recognize a similar event in the future.

Yes?

No. Take the time to look up several different translations of Daniel 9:27 and you'll realize that it must be very difficult to translate. At least the second half of it, anyway. English translations vary wildly on that verse.

Here it is from the NIV:

Daniel 9:27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.

You can see here that it is translated as "abomination" (singular).

But, what should be obvious when it comes to determining what Jesus was referring to is the fact that He specifically said that the temple buildings would be destroyed. And in Daniel 9:26 there is a reference to the city and the sanctuary being destroyed. So, it's obvious to me that Jesus had Daniel 9:26-27 in mind when He referred to the abomination of desolation in the Olivet Discourse.

 

[CadyandZoe]

No. Take the time to look up several different translations of Daniel 9:27 and you'll realize that it must be very difficult to translate. At least the second half of it, anyway. English translations vary wildly on that verse.

Here it is from the NIV:

Daniel 9:27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.

You can see here that it is translated as "abomination" (singular).

But, what should be obvious when it comes to determining what Jesus was referring to is the fact that He specifically said that the temple buildings would be destroyed. And in Daniel 9:26 there is a reference to the city and the sanctuary being destroyed. So, it's obvious to me that Jesus had Daniel 9:26-27 in mind when He referred to the abomination of desolation in the Olivet Discourse.

The explicit Hebrew term for "temple" isn't in verse 27 as far as I can tell. (I haven't studied Hebrew so take this with a grain of salt.) Instead, Gabriel uses the Hebrew word for "wing."

The NET bible translator's notes contain the following reference.

The referent of the Hebrew word כְּנַף (knaf, “wing”) is unclear here. The LXX and Theodotion have “the temple.” Some English versions (e.g., NAB, NIV84) take this to mean “a wing of the temple,” but this is not clear.​

From what I remember, the word refers to a perimeter or boundary that surrounds a particular space, such as the edge of a table. In my opinion, the term "wing" should be interpreted as a maximum limit. In this case, "the wing" refers to the point beyond which intolerable acts will not be accepted, resulting in God's judgment. However, if you're correct that the word "abomination" is singular instead of plural, then my argument may have a flaw.

It appears that Daniel 11 aligns more closely with Jesus' statement, as it suggests that the mentioned event signifies the moment when believers must flee and evacuate the city to avoid danger. However, this assumption may change if the NIV translation is accurate.

As you say, the passage is difficult to translate.

 

[covenantee]

In Romans 9:6-8, which is what I referenced, he wasn't just defining who is Israel. He was also defining who is not Israel. He said " For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel". So, he was speaking of two Israels here. That's the only way to make sense of what he said. He also said "Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children" and " In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children". So, he was clearly talking about an Israel of which those who were part of it were not part of it because of anything physical. Being a physical descendant of Abraham and the nation of Israel did not make someone part of the Israel of Paul said not all who are physically descended from the nation of Israel are part.

So, with that being said, I'm not sure why you would deny that Paul spoke of an "Israel besides the physical nation of Israel that is entirely spiritual in nature", as I had said.



Not all of the physical nation of Israel. That would contradict him having pointed out that being a physical descendant is not a determining factor in being part of the Israel of which not all who are physically descended from Israel are part. It is only those who are the spiritual children of Abraham, of God and of the promise who are counted as being part of the Israel of which all are, all are being and all will be saved.


So, we agree, after all? What is going on here? You seemed to go from being completely off base about what Paul was writing in Romans 9 to completley spot on here. What gives? Would you agree then that when Paul said "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel" he was saying not all who are physically descended from the nation of Israel are true Israel? And would you agree that the basis for being part of true Israel is not anything physical but rather is based on faith?



And, now you've gone off track again. No, he contrasts people with faith with those who do not have faith. If you continue reading into Romans 10 and 11 you can see that he talks about Israelite and Gentiles believers coming together as one like he does in his other letters.

Romans 10:10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Paul said "there is no difference between Jew and Gentile, so why are you trying to make a difference between them? Why would you want to keep separate what Jesus has brought together as one? There is no basis for seeing two separate groups of God's people. There is one and it's all who belong to Christ regardless of whether they are Jew or Gentile. Paul went on to show in Romans 11 how Jew and Gentile believers are grafted in together in the good olive tree. There is no basis for trying to keep Jews and Gentiles separate when scripture continually talks about how they have been brought together as one by the blood of Christ.

Also, Romans 9:6-8 refers to those of true Israel as being called through Isaac, as being the children of God and children of the promise. What else did Paul write about who are called through Isaac and who are the children of God and children of the promise?

Galatians 3:26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Galatians 4:28 Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise.

In these passages, Paul includes Gentile believers when using the same terms he used in Romans 9:6-8 to describe true Israel. So, with that being the case, why would you deny that Gentile believers are also part of true Israel? It has nothing to do with anything physical, as Paul made clear in Romans 9:6-8, so why do you make it as if it does?

Amens, bro.

 

[Timtofly]

In Romans 9:6-8, which is what I referenced, he wasn't just defining who is Israel. He was also defining who is not Israel. He said " For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel". So, he was speaking of two Israels here.

That is the point that is wrong. If you are no longer Israel, that does not mean 2. It means no longer Israel. That is the point of "not". If your are not something, you are not the second group of what you are not.

He was only speaking of one Israel, and those who are no longer of Israel.

You claim that of the Second Birth, but then deny that about Israel.

You say one can stop being in Christ. That does not make 2 churches. One church in Christ, and the second church no longer in Christ. If you are no longer in Christ, you are not in Christ, of Christ, in the church, nor of the church. You are now lost. So as with those of Israel. They were no longer of Israel, nor Israel, but lost.

If those of Israel were grafted back in, they would once more be of Israel. As long as they were cut off, they stopped being Israel, and of Israel. That is the point Paul was making. Not all of Israel, were Israel.

Today we would say not all of the church are the church. They have been cut off. For the same reason, sin and disobedience.

The major difference is before the Cross, the church was about ethnic Israel. Now it is about the Second Birth. That is why Jesus had the conversation with Nicodemus in John 3.

After the Second Coming ethnicity will still not matter. Sin will not matter. No one will be in, nor born into Adam's dead corruptible flesh. Ethnicities will continue, just not in Adam's fallen image. All will be in God's image as it was on the 6th day. That will be the final end of sin, and decay that causes death. That will be eternal righteousness. Daniel 9:24 will be literal, not symbolic like many claim that Daniel 9:24 was fulfilled 1993 years ago. No one will need to be redeemed.

 

[Freedm]

That could be taken different ways

this generation (the generation living at the time)

please not even the birth pangs could go on for years.. and they had not happened, yet. Nor the great tribulation. Still to this day has not happened..

So that generation did not witness any of the events (maybe some of them did the 70 AD.)

But that generation did witness the destruction of the temple, and a time of great distress such as had not happened since the beginning of the world, and signs and wonders. So how can you say that generation did not witness any of the events?

Is your entire argument based on the lack of a physical return of Jesus? If so, you have to consider, in light of all the other things that are known to have happened, that perhaps the return of Jesus was not as you imagined it to be. Perhaps you misunderstood what kind of return there would be, just as the Jews misunderstood what kind of King they would have. He told us plainly, his kingdom is not of this world. So why then do you expect a physical return of Jesus, to sit on a physical throne?

 

[Cassandra]

The 70 years is over in 34 AD when Stephen is martyred. That is when the times of the Gentiles Begin---right after his martyrdom, Paul is converted and ministers to Gentiles.