Let's examine Revelation 20:4 yet again.

[David in NJ]

Foolish.

The stars are the messengers that the Lord gathered the exilies of Israel and heals their brokenheartex. He knows their name because they are the choosen and redeemed saints from the old and New Testament in Christ (Israel). Not your so-called trillion of celestical beings.

Terrible shame that you find God's words as "foolish"

 

[claninja]

The temple being destroyed is SEPARATE from the "When is the sign of your coming" = it is not included with His 2nd Coming

Doesn't matter if you believe it is separate. That's not the point that I am making. @Davidpt seemed to argue that vs 1-3, in regards to the temple destruction, are completely unrelated or have nothing to do with the olivet discourse. However, this is untenable from a grammatical and contextual standpoint.

• As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be (temple destruction being the antecedent), and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” And Jesus answered them.......

What the text does NOT say is that Jesus "partially answered them" or that Jesus "only answered the 2nd/3rd question" or that Jesus "did not address their question". It simply states that Jesus answered them. So there is nothing grammatically or contextually that clearly demonstrates that Jesus did not answer their full question.

 

[TribulationSigns]

• As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be (temple destruction being the antecedent), and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” And Jesus answered them.......

What the text does NOT say is that Jesus "partially answered them" or that Jesus "only answered the 2nd/3rd question" or that Jesus "did not address their question". It simply states that Jesus answered them. So there is nothing grammatically or contextually that clearly demonstrates that Jesus did not answer their full question.

Ahem...

Things which "appear" right at first glance are often found wanting when compared with the "whole" of scripture in the light of scripture, defined by scripture.

Luke 21:5-11

• "And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said,
• As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
• And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?
• And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.
• But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by.
• Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom:
• And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven."

Unless we would be Preaterists or Preterists, this answer Christ gave doesn't "fit" the context at all!

There is not the slightest suggestion here that this verse speaks of two entirely different eras. It's speaking of one event, which is when these things occur, then will be the sign of His coming. If they believe in the 70 AD theory then it's easy for people to distort this passage (and others like it) and claim without any Biblical validation, that it refers to two different eras entirely. As an example, it's easier for me to believe that Satan was not bound at the cross "if" I hold to a Dispensationalist theory. To dig deeper and understand his true binding requires the honor of us working to search out a matter.

You may believe it is about the literal Jewish temple being destroyed...which wasn't the prophecy that "Christ" declared. Sure a physical Temple was destroyed, sure there is great physical tribulation, sure people may have fled into physical mountains, sure there is literal famine in the world, sure there is literal pestilence, etc., etc. But none of that is the fulfillment of any of Christ's prophecies. Was the gospel preached to all nations in 70 AD? Did immediately after the tribulation of those days, the physical sun became dark and the stars fell from heaven? ...the point is, just because a great deal of people believe prophecy is literal and easily understood, doesn't mean that it actually is. As it is written:

Proverbs 25:2

• "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter."

It's not the honor of kings to look at famines in the world and say it fulfills prophecy, or broken down Temples and say it fulfills prophecy, nor to say Jewish people fleeing into Jordanian mountains when the Romans came fulfill prophecy. The honor is in knowing and believing that God conceals things, and those who honorably reign with Christ, have the mind of Christ, and the Spirit to search out the "truth of the matter." Selah.

 

[David in NJ]

Doesn't matter if you believe it is separate. That's not the point that I am making. @Davidpt seemed to argue that vs 1-3, in regards to the temple destruction, are completely unrelated or have nothing to do with the olivet discourse. However, this is untenable from a grammatical and contextual standpoint.

• As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be (temple destruction being the antecedent), and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” And Jesus answered them.......

What the text does NOT say is that Jesus "partially answered them" or that Jesus "only answered the 2nd/3rd question" or that Jesus "did not address their question". It simply states that Jesus answered them. So there is nothing grammatically or contextually that clearly demonstrates that Jesus did not answer their full question.

Grammatically = JESUS did not include the destruction of the Temple in His Second Coming

Look and SEE

Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

This is Matthew 24:1-2 = It is a Complete Prophecy by Itself = It stands alone and is not included in the Olivet Discourse/Prophecy
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Olivet Discourse Begins in verse 3 and Ends with His Second Coming in verses 29-31

BEGIN
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?”

END
“Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Consider wisely the Holy City, the Temple, and the Buyers and Sellers cast out - What hidden manna do you see there:

John 2:13-21

• "And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,
• And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
• And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;
• And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.
• And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.
• Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
• Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
• Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
• But he spake of the temple of his body."

The very fact that most Christians believe this theory of 70 AD "proves" that it's the "easy" thing to believe. The harder thing to believe is that which is hid from most people's eyes--which is that the Holy Temple, representing Christ Himself, who was burdened with our sins, was destroyed on the cross according to the law, for our sins, and not one stone left standing, and was "restored" after three days in His resurrection, Him being the chief corner stone of that restoring/rebuilding. For me to be wrong would mean that "this narrative" is all a lie, there was no judgment upon the city where beside from the elect, Israel was blinded, her kingdom taken from her, and given to another. ...you think this convoluted I presume?

1st Corinthians 3:9-11

• "For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.
• According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
• For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."

So I ask again, if Christ is the cornerstone of a temple rebuilding, this begs the question, rebuilding what Temple that was fallen? And WHEN did it fall that it needed rebuilding... in three days where we are now his builders of THIS temple? Selah!

 

[claninja]

Grammatically = JESUS did not include the destruction of the Temple in His Second Coming

Look and SEE

Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

This is Matthew 24:1-2 = It is a Complete Prophecy by Itself = It stands alone and is not included in the Olivet Discourse/Prophecy
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Olivet Discourse Begins in verse 3 and Ends with His Second Coming in verses 29-31

BEGIN
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?”

END
“Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Grammatically, that's incorrect.

Grammatically = JESUS did not include the destruction of the Temple in His Second Coming

Look and SEE

Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

This is Matthew 24:1-2 = It is a Complete Prophecy by Itself = It stands alone and is not included in the Olivet Discourse/Prophecy
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Olivet Discourse Begins in verse 3 and Ends with His Second Coming in verses 29-31

BEGIN
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?”

END
“Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Your response contains no grammatical argument, so I have no idea what you are talking about

Grammatically, the antecedent to the demonstrative pronoun “these things” in vs 3 refers to the previous events of vs 1-2 the temple buildings and not one stone atop another. Therefore grammatically, you cannot separate vs 3 from vs 1-2.

 

[Davidpt]

Doesn't matter if you believe it is separate. That's not the point that I am making. @Davidpt seemed to argue that vs 1-3, in regards to the temple destruction, are completely unrelated or have nothing to do with the olivet discourse. However, this is untenable from a grammatical and contextual standpoint.

• As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be (temple destruction being the antecedent), and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” And Jesus answered them.......

What the text does NOT say is that Jesus "partially answered them" or that Jesus "only answered the 2nd/3rd question" or that Jesus "did not address their question". It simply states that Jesus answered them. So there is nothing grammatically or contextually that clearly demonstrates that Jesus did not answer their full question.

I'm arguing it like this. Clearly, Luke 21:20, for example, involved the first century leading up to 70 AD. In Matthew 24:23-26, Jesus is focused on the end of this age, though.

For example.

Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.


Compare with.

2 Thessalonians 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

And also compare with this.



Revelation 13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.

All of those things above are meaning during this below.

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

And the following is in regards to the holy place in question.

2 Thessalonians 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

When Matthew 24:15 is meaning, the 2nd temple was already destroyed some 2000 years earlier.

In my view then, I basically take Matthew 24:23-26 to be meaning during great tribulation involving verses 15-22. And the fact Matthew 24:24 connects to 2 Thessalonians 2, which then connects to the 42 month reign of the beast in Revelation 13, it is then absurd that the context pertaining to Matthew 24:15-22 is the first century and 70 AD.

Let's circle back to Matthew 24:24 again.

Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect

The following is who is being deceived.

2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition

This is not meaning someone already deceived. This is meaning someone no longer deceived, then deceived again. Those that fall away = the son of perdition. IOW, the son of perdition equals those like Judas.

2 Thessalonians 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

Revelation 19:21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

Ephesians 6:17-------the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God

 

[David in NJ]

Grammatically, that's incorrect.


Your response contains no grammatical argument, so I have no idea what you are talking about

Grammatically, the antecedent to the demonstrative pronoun “these things” in vs 3 refers to the previous events of vs 1-2 the temple buildings and not one stone atop another. Therefore grammatically, you cannot separate vs 3 from vs 1-2.

Dear claninja,

JESUS said "these things" only to the Temple

Let's LOOK again = Matthew 24:1-2

v1 - As Jesus left the temple and was walking away, His disciples came up to Him to point out its buildings.
v2 - “Do you see all these things?”

@claninja - What things? Let's LOOK again = to point out its buildings.

What things = v2 = “Truly I tell you, not one stone(of the buildings) here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

Next subject = Second Coming

While Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately.
“Tell us,” they said, “when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?”

Notice that Jesus speaking in verses 1 and 2 is public

Notice that beginning in verse 3 AFTER Jesus spoke publicly the disciples seek JESUS privately

publicy the Temple will be destroyed, whereas privately JESUS Prophecies to His disciples

Pretty COOL Stuff - don't ya think

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Dear claninja,

JESUS said "these things" only to the Temple

Let's LOOK again = Matthew 24:1-2

v1 - As Jesus left the temple and was walking away, His disciples came up to Him to point out its buildings.
v2 - “Do you see all these things?”

@claninja - What things? Let's LOOK again

What things = v2 = “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

Next subject = Second Coming

While Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately.
“Tell us,” they said, “when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?”

Notice that Jesus speaking in verses 1 and 2 is public

Notice that beginning in verse 3 AFTER Jesus spoke publicly the disciples seek JESUS privately

publicy the Temple will be destroyed, whereas privately JESUS Prophecies to His disciples

Pretty COOL Stuff - don't ya think

I'm not sure what your point is here with the public and private thing. Do you deny that one of the questions the disciples asked in Matthew 24:3 is in relation to what Jesus told them in verses 1 and 2?

Matthew 24:1 Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. 2 And Jesus said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” 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 should be obvious that when the disciples asked Jesus "when will these things be" that they were referring to "these things" that Jesus said would be destroyed, which were "the buildings of the temple". So, their first question, in context, was basically "when will these things (the temple buildings) be destroyed?".

 

[David in NJ]

Foolish.

That interpretation of yours is incorrect and ignores the context of Psalm 147.

The passage is not about astronomical objects or countless celestial beings. The subject is consistent throughout: the LORD rebuilding Jerusalem, gathering the exiles of Israel, and healing the brokenhearted (Ps. 147:2–3).

The reference to “stars” must be read within this redemptive framework. Throughout Scripture, stars symbolize God’s people, those whom He knows, calls, and appoints:

• Genesis 15:5 — Abraham’s descendants likened to stars
• Daniel 12:3 — the righteous shine like stars
• Revelation 1:20 — stars represent God’s appointed messengers

God “calls them each by name” because they are chosen, redeemed, and known by Him, fulfilled in Christ—the true Israel composed of both Old and New Testament saints.

Psalm 147 is a song about the covenant restoration, not speculation about angels floating in physical cosmos. To read it otherwise is to detach verse 4 from the clear meaning of verses 2–3.

When did you add 'foolish' to your name?

Oh - eye C u b talkn bout me = now thaz full-ish

 

[David in NJ]

I guess I’m confused as to why you are appealing to vs 23-26? There’s nothing there that demands those events could not or did not happen prior to or around 70ad.

Additionally, I’m not really sure why you are appealing outside of Matthew 24 to Luke 21, when we are talking about the context of Matthew 24?

Neither of these address the fact that at the beginning of Matthew 24, the disciples point out the literal temple buildings and then Jesus says “do you see all things, there shall not be one stone upon another”. Then the disciples ask “when”, and Jesus, in Vs 4, kicks off the answer to the disciples questions. So grammatically and contextually, the olivet discourse is at least, in part, a response to the question of when the temple would be destroyed.

Post 368 has been UPdated for you

 

[claninja]

Dear claninja,

JESUS said "these things" only to the Temple

Let's LOOK again = Matthew 24:1-2

v1 - As Jesus left the temple and was walking away, His disciples came up to Him to point out its buildings.
v2 - “Do you see all these things?”

@claninja - What things? Let's LOOK again = to point out its buildings.

What things = v2 = “Truly I tell you, not one stone(of the buildings) here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

Next subject = Second Coming

While Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately.
“Tell us,” they said, “when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?”

Notice that Jesus speaking in verses 1 and 2 is public

Notice that beginning in verse 3 AFTER Jesus spoke publicly the disciples seek JESUS privately

publicy the Temple will be destroyed, whereas privately JESUS Prophecies to His disciples

Pretty COOL Stuff - don't ya think

As already stated, vs 3 contains a demonstrative pronoun - “these things”

• 3While Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?”

The antecedent to this demonstrative pronoun is the event listed in vs 1-2 - destruction of the temple (not one stone atop another in regards to the temple buildings), regardless of change in setting.

Grammatically, vs 3’s question includes the destruction of temple.

 

[claninja]

I'm arguing it like this. Clearly, Luke 21:20, for example, involved the first century leading up to 70 AD. In Matthew 24:23-26, Jesus is focused on the end of this age, though.

For example.

Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.


Compare with.

2 Thessalonians 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

And also compare with this.



Revelation 13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.

All of those things above are meaning during this below.

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

And the following is in regards to the holy place in question.

2 Thessalonians 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

When Matthew 24:15 is meaning, the 2nd temple was already destroyed some 2000 years earlier.

In my view then, I basically take Matthew 24:23-26 to be meaning during great tribulation involving verses 15-22. And the fact Matthew 24:24 connects to 2 Thessalonians 2, which then connects to the 42 month reign of the beast in Revelation 13, it is then absurd that the context pertaining to Matthew 24:15-22 is the first century and 70 AD.

Let's circle back to Matthew 24:24 again.

Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect

The following is who is being deceived.

2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition

This is not meaning someone already deceived. This is meaning someone no longer deceived, then deceived again. Those that fall away = the son of perdition. IOW, the son of perdition equals those like Judas.

2 Thessalonians 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

Revelation 19:21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

Ephesians 6:17-------the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God

I have no idea what any of this has to do with Matthew 24:1-3. Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, nor revelation are the context setting for Matthew 24.

I’m not sure why your argument requires you to string together a bunch of NT verses……..

Matthew 24:1-3 sets the stage. It’s a series of questions directed at Jesus after he states the temple will be destroyed. Vs 4 begins Jesus’ answer to these questions.

 

[David in NJ]

As already stated, vs 3 contains a demonstrative pronoun - “these things”

• 3While Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?”

The antecedent to this demonstrative pronoun is the event listed in vs 1-2 - destruction of the temple (not one stone atop another in regards to the temple buildings), regardless of change in setting.

Grammatically, vs 3’s question includes the destruction of temple.

Good Morning,

Maybe take the sentence to a English language instructor or you can review how it works here:

"and" is a conjunction​

1. A particle which expresses the relation of connection or addition. It is used to conjoin a word with a word, a clause with a clause, or a sentence with a sentence.

B.) and conjoins Temple destruction = "and" what will be the sign of your coming

Example: Boys ask their Dad: Dad, you said you are going to tear down the shed in the backyard AND when will you Return home from your assignment overseas?


The disciples asked Two Concerns/Topics/Subjects in one sentence.
English Language = the word "and" conjoins the two separate subject matters into one sentence.

A.) Destruction of Temple
"and"
B.) Your Second Coming

SHALOM​

 

[claninja]

Good Morning,

Maybe take the sentence to a English language instructor or you can review how it works here:

"and" is a conjunction​

1. A particle which expresses the relation of connection or addition. It is used to conjoin a word with a word, a clause with a clause, or a sentence with a sentence.

B.) and conjoins Temple destruction = "and" what will be the sign of your coming

Example: Boys ask their Dad: Dad, you said you are going to tear down the shed in the backyard AND when will you Return home from your assignment overseas?


The disciples asked Two Concerns/Topics/Subjects in one sentence.
English Language = the word "and" conjoins the two separate subject matters into one sentence.

A.) Destruction of Temple
"and"
B.) Your Second Coming

SHALOM​

I never argued that vs 3 contained only one question, so I’m not sure what the point is of your condescending argument?

Vs 3 contains 2 questions - 1.) when will these things be ( the antecedent being the destruction of temple) and 2.) what is the sign (of the parousia/end of the age).

Vs 4 simply says Jesus “answered them”. Therefore the olivet discourse contains, at least in part, and answer to question, “when will these things be”. To divorce this from the olivet discourse, ignoring how context and grammar actually work, BECAUSE it doesn’t agree with a specific theological frame work, is eisegesis.

 

[claninja]

Ahem...

Things which "appear" right at first glance are often found wanting when compared with the "whole" of scripture in the light of scripture, defined by scripture.

Luke 21:5-11

• "And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said,
• As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
• And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?
• And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.
• But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by.
• Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom:
• And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven."

Unless we would be Preaterists or Preterists, this answer Christ gave doesn't "fit" the context at all!

There is not the slightest suggestion here that this verse speaks of two entirely different eras. It's speaking of one event, which is when these things occur, then will be the sign of His coming. If they believe in the 70 AD theory then it's easy for people to distort this passage (and others like it) and claim without any Biblical validation, that it refers to two different eras entirely. As an example, it's easier for me to believe that Satan was not bound at the cross "if" I hold to a Dispensationalist theory. To dig deeper and understand his true binding requires the honor of us working to search out a matter.

You may believe it is about the literal Jewish temple being destroyed...which wasn't the prophecy that "Christ" declared. Sure a physical Temple was destroyed, sure there is great physical tribulation, sure people may have fled into physical mountains, sure there is literal famine in the world, sure there is literal pestilence, etc., etc. But none of that is the fulfillment of any of Christ's prophecies. Was the gospel preached to all nations in 70 AD? Did immediately after the tribulation of those days, the physical sun became dark and the stars fell from heaven? ...the point is, just because a great deal of people believe prophecy is literal and easily understood, doesn't mean that it actually is. As it is written:

Proverbs 25:2

• "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter."

It's not the honor of kings to look at famines in the world and say it fulfills prophecy, or broken down Temples and say it fulfills prophecy, nor to say Jewish people fleeing into Jordanian mountains when the Romans came fulfill prophecy. The honor is in knowing and believing that God conceals things, and those who honorably reign with Christ, have the mind of Christ, and the Spirit to search out the "truth of the matter." Selah.

This doesn’t address the contextual or grammatical argument that Matthew 24:1-3 discuss the destruction of the temple buildings.

 

[David in NJ]

I never argued that vs 3 contained only one question, so I’m not sure what the point is of your condescending argument?

Vs 3 contains 2 questions - 1.) when will these things be ( the antecedent being the destruction of temple) and 2.) what is the sign (of the parousia/end of the age).

Vs 4 simply says Jesus “answered them”. Therefore the olivet discourse contains, at least in part, and answer to question, “when will these things be”. To divorce this from the olivet discourse, ignoring how context and grammar actually work, BECAUSE it doesn’t agree with a specific theological frame work, is eisegesis.

Condescending???

You just keep repeating your grammatical error by insisting "these things" go beyond the destruction of the Temple

Proper Grammar Instruction

"and" is a conjunction​

1. A particle which expresses the relation of connection or addition. It is used to conjoin a word with a word, a clause with a clause, or a sentence with a sentence.

B.) and conjoins Temple destruction = "and" what will be the sign of your coming

Example: Boys ask their Dad:

Dad, you said you are going to tear down the shed in the backyard AND when will you Return home from your assignment overseas?

The disciples asked Two Concerns/Topics/Subjects in one sentence.
English Language = the word "and" conjoins the two separate subject matters into one sentence.
A.) Destruction of Temple
"and"
B.) Your Second Coming​

 

[TribulationSigns]

This doesn’t address the contextual or grammatical argument that Matthew 24:1-3 discuss the destruction of the temple buildings.

I have explained Matthew 24:1-3 to you and other Preterists and so-called Partial Preterism Amillennialists before, many times. And you guys are still spiritually blind to Christ's Word. So guess its time for another education for you here:

I have no problem with them saying the disciples spoke of the literal temple (G2411 - hieron). In fact, we can see it's quite obvious. But listen carefully... the disciples were not greatly enlightened as yet so were still thinking in terms of the Old Testament dispensation, as the Holy Spirit of "revealing" had not been poured out at Pentecost yet.

John 16:12

• "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
• Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
• He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you."

John 14:26

• "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."

Revelation is not instant, as many things were revealed to the Disciples progressively. We can see remnants of this "even" after Pentecost as Peter was talking about requiring physical circumcision in the church, and his poor understanding of the lawfulness of eating unclean meats. We're talking about progressive Revelation here!! The Disciples were still thinking in terms of Old Testament Temple, when Christ was revealing the mystery of new and Spiritual things that the emporal merely "represented." Christ is illuminating (to them, and by extention, us) the fall of the Old Testament Temple as a type of the Old Testament congregation, and the coming restoration/rebuilding of the Temple and Holy City in the New Testament type of the New Testament body of Christ--which is the church (Acts 15:14-17).

Note carefully that the language as Christ "went out of the Temple," and He "departed from it." Granted, it may seem coincidental language that this is when they pointed out the Temple buildings. But it has a Spiritual meaning. The Disciples are illustrating the great pride they (being Jews) had in this glorious building, and such reverence for the greatness of it as the pride of Israel. They put so much stock in their bloodline and Jewish traditions, when without Christ their Messiah, this was all meaningless! What it represented would be thrown down. Many of the Jews (and their cousins the Premillennialists, Dispensationalists, and yes the Preterists today) had put all their trust in the natural/physical/temporal, and God was prophesying in the Spiritual--which isn't an anomaly since this is what Christ did throughout His ministry. Just like when the disciple's brethren, the Jews, asked Jesus for a sign. And He gave them one, even though they didn't even realize it or its significance. They missed it because they were thinking like many in the church today, in terms of a literal Temple being destroyed, and Christ was responding to their question by prophesying in spiritual terms. Not one stone left standing one upon another is very specific illustrating that it is completely vanished, totally GONE! It no longer represented the Holy One of Israel. The Disciples in that episode were glorying over a building, and Christ is saying what it represents will be taken away completely in God's economy. His Words are not ever coincidental, they are deliberate. Again, as in His promise of the sign to the Jews (which they asked for) was fulfilled, and all they could think about was a literal build--just like you and the rest of the congregation today. But whether or not men ever understand what Temple Christ was speaking of, doesn't mean that he spoke of a physical, literal, stones of the Temple. Because the Holy Spirit being poured out at Pentecost would eventually reveal the "real" deeper Spiritual truth of His words--to His people. For example, when Christ threw the buyers and sellers out of the Temple (G2411 - hieron)

John 2:18-21

• "Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
• Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
• Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
• But he spake of the temple of his body."

That word Temple Christ used there is a different word (G3485 - naos), but it is obvious that the words are interchangeable as the Jews spoke of the physical building, declaring it took 46 years to build. And note Christ never told them that He spoke of the Temple of His body, it remained a mystery to them. But it is written by the Apostle John for us, who would come after and receive the deeper Spiritual truth of His words. True to His Words, they did destroy the Temple, and Christ did raise it up in three days, and it was the sign that Jesus had the power/authority to do these things--as they had asked. A sign that many are blinded to from that day to this very day.

The truth is many Jews looked upon the Gentiles as Dogs and Swine and gloried in the fact that they were the chosen seed of Abraham that could never fall from that (in their minds). Even as many in the premillennial/Dispensational church today think their New Testament Church can never fall. But the fact is, they did fall and the congregation today is no better than the congregation was then. Because their eyes were on the temporal rather than the Spiritual, even as the Disciples were admiring the great buildings of the Jewish nation. The Premillennial and Preterism church today feels the very same way about the nation of Israel's position because their hermeneutic is almost identical in its looking at God's Word only literally (John 3:4) and to some degree having great disdain for God authored Spiritual truths. It's simply the other side of that "exact same" coin of methodology. Get this... the stones represent the people, PEOPLE! Not physical stones, because those who fell and those who would be raised up/ built again, when we understand the builder and maker is God. For example:

Matthew 3:9-10

• "And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
• And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire."

Hello, did God talk about physical stones to raise up children? Of course not! God was able of those stones to raise up children unto Abraham, And He Did! Not literal stones, but Spiritual ones. Selah! What stones do you honestly think the Lord really talked about that was falling in Matthew 24:1-3, seriously?

Galatians 3:29

• "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

Nothing coincidental about the language of God raising up stones as the children of Abraham, though it may seem so to many who seem antithetical to the Spirit of truth. Nothing coincidental about stones being the building of the church, or the stones being made of wood hay and stubble, or of gold silver and precious gems "when we gracefully receive God authored Spiritual truths!" The word temple (G2411 - hieron) used by the Disciples doesn't preclude Christ from talking about a spiritual Temple any more than the word temple (G3485 - naos) that the Jews used in saying it took 46 years to build it precluded Christ from speaking of His body and not whatever building the Jews spoke of.

Therefore the Disciples were Jews and they were talking about the physical temple building with physical stones there, but Christ was NOT! Just as the Jews were talking about the physical Temple in the other passage saying it took 46 years to build, but again, Obviously, Christ was not! Selah!

 

[TribulationSigns]

Also, not that this truth will matter much to those who turn to the right hand and to the left to avoid the truth of that matter.

As I said, there are not many Berean-like Christians who will do anything but ignore the facts, and argue the Hebrew and Greek nuances, insist on physical stones with me and neglect the most important part of interpretations--which is they belong to God.

Isaiah 8:14

• "And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem."

It is written, the Stone the builders rejected, is become the head of the corner--of a new building after the fall. Christ "is" the cornerstone, and we, as people, are the "stones" that were built again. So were the remnant Jews of Israel who has moved from the fallen Old Testament congregation into the rebuilt New Testament congregation. But for those who are not part of that restoration, not one of them was left standing one upon another in that Old Testament Temple. 70 A.D. notwithstanding! Selah!

 

[David in NJ]

I have explained Matthew 24:1-3 to you and other Preterists and so-called Partial Preterism Amillennialists before, many times. And you guys are still spiritually blind to Christ's Word. So guess its time for another education for you here:

I have no problem with them saying the disciples spoke of the literal temple (G2411 - hieron). In fact, we can see it's quite obvious. But listen carefully... the disciples were not greatly enlightened as yet so were still thinking in terms of the Old Testament dispensation, as the Holy Spirit of "revealing" had not been poured out at Pentecost yet.

John 16:12

• "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
• Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
• He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you."

John 14:26

• "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."

Revelation is not instant, as many things were revealed to the Disciples progressively. We can see remnants of this "even" after Pentecost as Peter was talking about requiring physical circumcision in the church, and his poor understanding of the lawfulness of eating unclean meats. We're talking about progressive Revelation here!! The Disciples were still thinking in terms of Old Testament Temple, when Christ was revealing the mystery of new and Spiritual things that the emporal merely "represented." Christ is illuminating (to them, and by extention, us) the fall of the Old Testament Temple as a type of the Old Testament congregation, and the coming restoration/rebuilding of the Temple and Holy City in the New Testament type of the New Testament body of Christ--which is the church (Acts 15:14-17).

Note carefully that the language as Christ "went out of the Temple," and He "departed from it." Granted, it may seem coincidental language that this is when they pointed out the Temple buildings. But it has a Spiritual meaning. The Disciples are illustrating the great pride they (being Jews) had in this glorious building, and such reverence for the greatness of it as the pride of Israel. They put so much stock in their bloodline and Jewish traditions, when without Christ their Messiah, this was all meaningless! What it represented would be thrown down. Many of the Jews (and their cousins the Premillennialists, Dispensationalists, and yes the Preterists today) had put all their trust in the natural/physical/temporal, and God was prophesying in the Spiritual--which isn't an anomaly since this is what Christ did throughout His ministry. Just like when the disciple's brethren, the Jews, asked Jesus for a sign. And He gave them one, even though they didn't even realize it or its significance. They missed it because they were thinking like many in the church today, in terms of a literal Temple being destroyed, and Christ was responding to their question by prophesying in spiritual terms. Not one stone left standing one upon another is very specific illustrating that it is completely vanished, totally GONE! It no longer represented the Holy One of Israel. The Disciples in that episode were glorying over a building, and Christ is saying what it represents will be taken away completely in God's economy. His Words are not ever coincidental, they are deliberate. Again, as in His promise of the sign to the Jews (which they asked for) was fulfilled, and all they could think about was a literal build--just like you and the rest of the congregation today. But whether or not men ever understand what Temple Christ was speaking of, doesn't mean that he spoke of a physical, literal, stones of the Temple. Because the Holy Spirit being poured out at Pentecost would eventually reveal the "real" deeper Spiritual truth of His words--to His people. For example, when Christ threw the buyers and sellers out of the Temple (G2411 - hieron)

John 2:18-21

• "Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
• Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
• Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
• But he spake of the temple of his body."

That word Temple Christ used there is a different word (G3485 - naos), but it is obvious that the words are interchangeable as the Jews spoke of the physical building, declaring it took 46 years to build. And note Christ never told them that He spoke of the Temple of His body, it remained a mystery to them. But it is written by the Apostle John for us, who would come after and receive the deeper Spiritual truth of His words. True to His Words, they did destroy the Temple, and Christ did raise it up in three days, and it was the sign that Jesus had the power/authority to do these things--as they had asked. A sign that many are blinded to from that day to this very day.

The truth is many Jews looked upon the Gentiles as Dogs and Swine and gloried in the fact that they were the chosen seed of Abraham that could never fall from that (in their minds). Even as many in the premillennial/Dispensational church today think their New Testament Church can never fall. But the fact is, they did fall and the congregation today is no better than the congregation was then. Because their eyes were on the temporal rather than the Spiritual, even as the Disciples were admiring the great buildings of the Jewish nation. The Premillennial and Preterism church today feels the very same way about the nation of Israel's position because their hermeneutic is almost identical in its looking at God's Word only literally (John 3:4) and to some degree having great disdain for God authored Spiritual truths. It's simply the other side of that "exact same" coin of methodology. Get this... the stones represent the people, PEOPLE! Not physical stones, because those who fell and those who would be raised up/ built again, when we understand the builder and maker is God. For example:

Matthew 3:9-10

• "And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
• And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire."

Hello, did God talk about physical stones to raise up children? Of course not! God was able of those stones to raise up children unto Abraham, And He Did! Not literal stones, but Spiritual ones. Selah! What stones do you honestly think the Lord really talked about that was falling in Matthew 24:1-3, seriously?

Galatians 3:29

• "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

Nothing coincidental about the language of God raising up stones as the children of Abraham, though it may seem so to many who seem antithetical to the Spirit of truth. Nothing coincidental about stones being the building of the church, or the stones being made of wood hay and stubble, or of gold silver and precious gems "when we gracefully receive God authored Spiritual truths!" The word temple (G2411 - hieron) used by the Disciples doesn't preclude Christ from talking about a spiritual Temple any more than the word temple (G3485 - naos) that the Jews used in saying it took 46 years to build it precluded Christ from speaking of His body and not whatever building the Jews spoke of.

Therefore the Disciples were Jews and they were talking about the physical temple building with physical stones there, but Christ was NOT! Just as the Jews were talking about the physical Temple in the other passage saying it took 46 years to build, but again, Obviously, Christ was not! Selah!

You are very CLOSE to 100% TRUTH

Matt 24:1-2 = CHRIST spoke of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem

John 2:18-22 = CHRIST spoke of His death on the Cross and His Resurrection