Matthew 24

[rwb]

These words spoken by Christ will be fulfilled just as he said that they would be. These things mentioned in verses 5-30 are signs pointing to the days in which Jesus shall return again. They are very obvious in our own days, only they shall get worse, not better

I don't disagree; however, the discourse would surely speak of things that would come to pass to Christ's kinsmen according to the flesh. Israel was the first chosen of God to represent the spiritual Kingdom of God (Church) that came with Christ. If these first century Jews had not heeded His warning to flee from the city when they saw the armies approaching, who would be left from among them to proclaim the Gospel of the Kingdom of God to all the nations of the world? The Gospel of the Kingdom of God must be preached to all the world for a witness to all nations before the end shall come.

Prophesy that pertains to the spiritual Kingdom of God, always results in physical wrath for those who do not heed God's warnings. We know the message of Christ was fixated on His people understanding about the 'spiritual' Kingdom of God that had come to them and to all humanity through Him. The first century Jewish disciples were fixated on a 'physical' Kingdom of God, like they had when David was King. The nation in unbelief would continue in unbelief as long as the city and temple remained. It was for that reason they utterly perished.

To take the minds of these first century disciples off the physical city and temple, Christ tells them not to look to the physical things that shall all be taken away. Rather, we are to look for the spiritual Kingdom of God that had come to them and all mankind that was at hand even at the doors. This Kingdom would only be known and could only be entered through the Holy Spirit within you when man is born again of the Spirit.

Christ did answer one of their questions when He told them, "See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down." The results of this warning, literally came to pass in 70 AD because the nation had become spiritual apostates, repeatedly committing spiritual adultery and refusal to heed the warnings from God. Even though the city and temple were physically destroyed, there final act of total rebellion against the Son of God that made them spiritually an abomination and a spiritually desolate nation to God was the crucifixion of their Messiah about thirty years before.

I view this a dual fulfillment that made an end of the nation chosen by God to be the physical representation of the Kingdom of God to all people, and finally fulfillment that shall be the end also for His Church on this earth who was chosen by God to be the spiritual representation of the Kingdom of God on this earth.

The words Christ spoke have application for His people living in every age, not just those living toward the last days when Christ will come again. IMO Christ focused more on them and all His people knowing the 'spiritual' Kingdom of God had come with power and authority to mankind, and that it would not be a physical Kingdom on this earth but is in fact the spiritual Kingdom of God in heaven.

 

[rebuilder 454]

The disciples heeded Jesus' warning in Matthew 24:15,16; fled prior to 70 AD; and survived.

They understood the relevance to them of Jesus' warning.

Thankfully, they were not dispensational futurists.

Flying scorpions, the AC, the great trib, mark of beast, AC sacrifice in HOH, And many others have NEVER HAPPENED.
Thankfully most see through the historicist view (the view ironically debunked by history)

 

[rwb]

Greetings brother~I have consider many different points of views taught by men.

I also know that the context drives our interpretation of what is being said~consider:

Interpretations "must" agree with their context.​

Remember this law: A text used out of context is a pretext. We must not violate it; we must learn to spot it.

A text is a word, clause, verse, paragraph, chapter, or book you are seeking to interpret.

Context is the surrounding information, which shows the author’s meaning by the text.

Out of context is using words and their sound contrary to the surrounding information.

A pretext is a false and incorrect impression designed to hide or disguise the real intent.

Using a verse contrary to its context gives a misleading and deceitful sound of words to teach something the author did not intend and/or is not true. Hate this abuse of words! You have had your words used out of context before, and you hated the corruption of your intent and meaning. We must make sure we never do it with the precious Word of God. This rule applies to all writings and conversations of every sort, and so context is well understood by most people. Contracts, court records, novels, promises, and poetry are all understood in context, or surrounding information, to truly understand their meaning. Even single words are meaningless without a context, which is why you asked your teacher to use them in a sentence before you would try to spell them in a spelling bee! Even if we use a verse to teach a true point, we must make sure we still honor its context. For using the wrong verse to teach the right point is the first subtle step to heresy. We must mark it and take heed!

This generation must be understood in its context in which Christ used the phrase~and without question, he spoke of the wicked men that will take over the temple in Judea~which we shall prove that it is speaking of places where Jesus Christ is suppose to be worshipped. More on this later.

Thank you for you for the spirit in which you posted. I will reread your post in the morning. RB

One thing I've come to understand about the Word of God is that it is logical, cohesive and makes sense. So when I hear a view that seems not to make sense, I question that view.

As I said, I too once believed "this generation" exactly as you do, for the same reasons you have given. Since we know that evil will be with us until the end of days, so "this generation" appears to fit the evil generation that has always been found from the creation of man. Until Christ says seeing the fig tree beginning to have life again is the sign we should consider that we might know the return of Christ is near even at the door.

That doesn't make any sense to me because in the last days before Christ comes again there will not be signs of new spiritual life on the fig tree, because it will be Satan's little season that shall come after a thousand years have expired. Since time shall be no longer in the days when the seventh trumpet begins to sound, the spiritual Kingdom of God will be complete, not from new growth on the fig tree (Israelites) but because the last Gentile shall have come into the Kingdom of God. That is after all the mystery that had been hidden in times of old that was made known through Christ's Apostles after the cross and resurrection.

When we understand that Christ spoke the parable of the "fig tree" (Israel in unbelief) showing signs of life in the first century AD as the Gospel of the Kingdom of God is first preached to them, then we know Christ was not telling them this would be a sign to show the nearness of Christ returning, but rather the nearness of the spiritual Kingdom of God to all who hear the Gospel of the Kingdom of God and by grace through faith believe becoming part of the spiritual Kingdom of God in heaven. Because His Kingdom is not now of the world, will not be a physical kingdom, nor seen visibly because His Kingdom is within you.

 

[Red Baker]

Matthew 24:7b

"................ and earthquakes, in divers places."

Are true saints motivated and strengthen in their faith by the world's news? Again, I ask this question: before the world's news became like the speed of light going through this earth, how did saints labor to understand the scriptures, such as the one before us? I would venture to say, the very same way that we must do today~by seeking bible answers from the scriptures themselves, the very same way they Christ exhorted men to do. John 5:39 It does not get any harder than that. It does become very difficult, when we begin to look elsewhere, other than the scriptures. I have often said and do strongly believe, that if one was isolated on an island with nothing but the word of God, then that person could know all of the truths contain therein, "if" God was pleased to reveal it to that person. It is all hidden within the scriptures alone. This truth must be drilled into the minds of all young believers, and from them, to the next generation. But, we first must believe this with all of our hearts; if we do not, then we have no anchor for our souls to secure us from false prophets, who do not believe this.

"Earthquake in divers places"~To believe this in a literal sense, has it problems, more than I believe that they who hold the literal sense care to deal with. Consider a few:

1. "Those men who want to apply these earthquakes in a literal sense as a sign for the last days, should answer this question:" Have the things that are mentioned in this verse (famines, pestilences, and earthquakes) been common events that have been occurring since man has been upon the earth? The answer to that question is~yes. The scriptures from the OT gives us records of such events many times over. How could these be such a sign of Christ's coming, and warning for us to heed, in order to be prepared, when he comes? They cannot be.

2. "The literalist must prove that we must interpret these things literal." They can not do this, with support from this discourse.

3. The Literalist must disprove the spiritual interpretation as false." This no man can, nor do many even try to do so. They would expose themselves too much to their deceived followers. The historicist, those who are full blown preterist, will adamantly speak out and expose the premillennialist, because they are an easy target to expose, yet they for the most part will not enter into a debate with a spiritualist/idealist, who use scriptures to interpret scriptures, instead of history, and Josephus, and extra-biblical material that they force into the scriptures, and along side of them, give you a corrupt meaning of scriptures under consideration. I have heard men give different views of certain scriptures from Matthew 24; 2 Thess. and Revelation, yet never mention the spiritualist/idealist view, and they knew the view of them, yet did not want their followers hear it! Is that being honest?

5. "Do you believe that Christ would apply two things spiritual in this verse and not all three of them? He would not, neither did he. All three are to be understood in a spiritual sense. We must interpret scriptures, base upon what make sense with other plain scriptures; and what will flow with all scriptures, and allow them all to interpret each other. There must be a complete harmony with all scriptures, all should agree with this. Let us give some plain scriptures that will help us to interpret earthquakes to means what it does mean within this settings of this discourse, and the meaning is this: "earthquake=separation"

If we follow the discourse and the warnings carefully, then we should have no problem accepting the meaning that Christ intended for us to received from his use of his words.

Matthew 24 is a discourse given by Christ, concerning events that are signs showing believers that Christ's coming is at hand, and also warnings to the elect to help them to be prepared and ready for that day, and not be be over discouraged when these things are coming to pass, lest they faint and grow weary during those days. Those days will be a great testing period for all true believers, since they shall be overcome, and cast down, but not destroyed! 2 Corinthians 8-9. By the very fact that Revelation 20:9 speaks of the camp of the saints prove that during the little season when Satan regains his power as he had it in the OT, shows that the saints are still holding fast their profession and standing fast against the powers of darkness, even though, in those days there shall be earthquakes in divers places throughout this world, separating them from the majority of professing Christians, and the separation is more than mutual.

The holy apostle said these words concerning those days:

Read 2 Timothy 3:1-5~I will only quote the very last words, for the sake of time:

".......From SUCH turn away."

Paul, just as Christ did, said that we must turn away from such hypocritical professors, who loved pleasures more than the word of God. You read 1 Timothy 3 down to 4:5 and tell me if we are living in these days~without question we are. Our days are indeed very perilous when the churches are full professors, yet they are empty, void of God's Spirit and a love for the truth. In the latter days, just before Christ's coming true believers will be departing from the temple of God~ (more on God's temple later) not only here in America, but in divers places, saints are no longer welcome, unless, they are willing to lay doctrine aside, and godliness, and let people do as it seems good in their sight~the scriptures are not important, loving sinners is much more important (even though they really do not care for sinners as much as they claim, church is more like a country club to them, than a house of worship) so they say.

Paul also said:

1 Timothy 6:3-5

"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and tot he doctrine which is according to godliness; he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strife of words, wereof cometh envy, strife, railing, evil surmising, perverse disputing of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: FROM SUCH withdrawn thyself."

Our Lord Jesus said these words, right after what he said in Matthew 24:15:

Matthew 24:16

"Then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains."

We shall consider this verse later, but now, let it suffice us to say that that Christ is warning his elect to flee from Judea. Judea here being spiritual Jerusalem of the NT, or the place where he is worship~just as in the OT Jerusalem and the temple were in Judea. Christ is worship throughout this world in the outward professing churches/temples, by millions upon millions. But, sad to say, that in the very last days, the man of sin shall sit within those temples/church buildings, and declare himself that he is God, and that is done when they begin to corrupt the pure teachings of the scriptures to fit their wicked lifestyle. It is not no longer unusual to see or hear even sodomites talking about God as though God is their father and friend, while they are married, or kissing/hugging their lover! The reason why they can do that is because their church or minister (he/she might even be a sodomite) said that God is not against it, but for it. This is one extreme, yet there are many other ways that they declare themselves to be God. All in the name of religion!

God's children will separate themselves from such wicked sinners, and wicked they are. Not only that, they will separate themselves from you, if you are bold enough to take a stand.

There are earthquakes happening all over this world. Saints have and will exdous Judea in the latter days. Before closing let me answer a question that some may have.

Do I believe that we all should forsake the outward churches of Christ? I am not saying that. Every man must be fully persuaded in his own mind and judge for himself. I will say this, it is hard to find true saints in great numbers in any one church, at least, this has been my experience for the last fifty years. Wherever there is a true and faithful church, it will be in small numbers throughout this world.

Every man has been given a conscience, and he should labor with a honest spirit, to always make sure that his conscience is void of offense, both toward man and God. The elect belong unto God, not man, so we exhort all to be faithful in their heart, using the word of God has their judge in whatsoever they do, do all to the glory of God, and not to man.

RB

 

[covenantee]

Flying scorpions, the AC, the great trib, mark of beast, AC sacrifice in HOH, And many others have NEVER HAPPENED.
Thankfully most see through the historicist view (the view ironically debunked by history)

The Judaean Christians' flight never happened?

Where are you reading that?

 

[covenantee]

We shall consider this verse later, but now, let it suffice us to say that that Christ is warning his elect to flee from Judea. Judea here being spiritual Jerusalem of the NT, or the place where he is worship~just as in the OT Jerusalem and the temple were in Judea.

Hi RB; did the Judaean Christians take and act upon Jesus' warning literally prior to 70 AD?

 

[Davidpt]

Matthew 24 ~D. W. "Red" Baker​

Matthew 24; Mark 13, and Luke 21 must be considered as some of the most important words in the scriptures, and the reason being is that Jesus himself thought it wise to speak these words as he was preparing to leave this world and go unto the Father. Because of this, we must consider these scriptures as words that we must seek to understand properly in order for us to heed them and hold them fast.
This discourse has without question been a battleground for many over the years, specially so in the last one hundred and fifty years or so, and most likely will increase as time grows closer to Christ's second coming.

Righteous men disagree over this discourse, and the reason why is that so many false prophets are out in the world with their message that is diametrically opposite of what Jesus Christ chose to warned his saints of concerning the last days of this world.

This thread will take several weeks to complete, so I ask folk to be patience as I labor to give an exposition of this prophetic message by the LORD of the all prophets, Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

A person's understanding of this discourse will reveal his eschatology beliefs.

Jesus will give us a understanding of what Daniel was speaking about in his dark prophetic teachings, not the other way around, as some would have you to believe. Some will take what they believe Daniel is saying and come to Matthew 24 and force their understanding upon Jesus' words, and from here go the Revelation and do the same. There is a progressive revelation from the OT to Revelation, so that by the time we arrive at Revelation, we should have enough light to interpret those highly symbolic language, if indeed we have the Spirit of God as our teacher and guide, and the faithful know that they do indeed.

How shall we read Matthew 24? As I have said a few times over that we must come to all scriptures and read them at face value first and foremost. No man should be bold enough to play with God's word, as if he has the right to do with God's word as he pleases, so as, to fit his own system of doctrine. So many have no fear over over-spiritualizing, and interpreting them more literally than they should. These are the two ditches that men fall into.

Let us consider this point a little more before moving on concerning taking God's word at face value.

The conventional mode of communication among men in order to minimize any possible misunderstanding between us should be our approach to the scriptures when reading them. Let me explain myself: If I say to someone, that the cow jumped over the fence~then the word cow means cow and fence means fence, or else, there is no means of communicating between us~according to the rules of grammar, communicating and logic~words we are saying and reading, must be true to their use, or else, there is no communication between man and man~or God and man. I trust my readers are following me. Words "do" have meaning at face value, or the scriptures are left open for men to teach anything under heaven. One man's doctrine is good as the next man's, if there are no rules of governing our use of words. I even take this approach to the book of Revelation. I read every word at face value, and then, and only then, do I allow the scriptures to dictate to me how I should understand what I am reading. I am totally convinced that this must be our methodology as we come to God's testimony to us from heaven. If a brother or sister has a better method of studying the scriptures~then speak and I will listen carefully.

I read this statement many years ago: "In the scriptures the contrast is not between the spiritual and literal~but between the spiritual and natural, for a passage may refer, when taken literally, either to that which is natural or, to that which is spiritual*."* We must allow themselves to determined that for us, by seeking the proper sense thereof, by comparing scriptures with scriptures, and other rules lay down for us in the scriptures. So, it is imperative, at least from my viewpoint, to come to them and read them at face value, and then seek its hidden truth with other scriptures.

If all men did this, then they would not come to Matthew 24 like they would a salad bar, just picking and choosing what they like and and dislike. The Historic and Preterit's are the worst at this. I believe the Premill just refuse to be open to the leading of the Spirit concerning how he uses his word to hide truth.

To be continue~Red Baker

I have only read a portion of what you submitted thus far. The way you are going about this is not reasonable, IMO. Flooding this thread with an entire book then expecting everyone else to keep up and be able to discuss/debate every single point you have raised thus far.

That rant aside, one thing I think you are not factoring in here, is this. In Luke 21, verse 20 and verse 27, there is a 2000 year gap between these events. While in Matthew 24, verse 15 and verse 30, there is no 2000 year gap between these events. And verse 29 alone proves it. Therefore, the events pertaining to Luke 21:20 are not the same events pertaining to Matthew 24:15.

Yet, you argue against Preterism, then do the same thing Preterists do. You have Luke 21:20 and Matthew 24:15 involving the same era of time, the same events.

I'm Premil, not Amil, yet I'm not a Dispy. Though, I take Matthew 24:15 to be involving the end of this age, not 70 AD instead, I do not take it to be involving Jerusalem in the middle east and a rebuilt temple there. I take it to be involving 2 Thessalonains 2, for one. And that I don't take any of that in the literal sense, in particular verse 4.

A lot of interpreters take 2 Thessalonians 2:4 to be involving Jerusalem in the middle east and a literal temple there. Preterists take it to mean the 2nd temple before it was destroyed. Dispies take it to be meaning a rebuilt temple in the future. Neither of these scenarios is even remotely supported via any of the other verses in this chapter. IOW, let's just ignore context here and interpret verse 4 in isolation and make it be about something none of the other verses in this chapter are remotely involving.

And speaking of something like that. That is exactly what a lot of interpreters do via verse 34 in Matthew 24. They interpret that verse in isolation and have it involving something none of the other verses surrounding it are involving. Clearly, verse 33 is not involving 70 AD nor is verse 35 and the verses that follow. By the time Jesus gets to verse 34 in the Discourse, what happened in 70 AD is way way in the past at this point. Unlike some interpreters, Jesus is not stuck in limbo in one era of time throughout the Discourse. As if He can't see beyond the first century or something. As if His prophetic ability was limited in scope to 70 AD but nothing beyond that era of time.

 

[ScottA]

Greetings Scott~I have not imposed a "literary only" rule please read what I said:


I'm a Idealist Amill.....meaning we do not necessarily interpret scriptures using literary approach but compare spiritual things with spiritual, just as we are taught in the scriptures and just as Jesus practiced.

John the Baptist was the fulfillment of the second coming of Elijah~he came in the same spirit and power that Elijah had as we both now know. God does hides truth under words that we just cannot interpret literally using the common meaning that most folks think of when they hear the world used. We labor to do as men of God in the past have done....


Hope this help to clarify our use of the holy scriptures and our manner of coming to the knowledge of the truth.

Your message is mixed. You started your first post, and now the one above, with a "face value", i.e. literary method of interpretation...and then finished denying it, but claiming both. If you speak out of both sides of your mouth, as you have demonstrated, your message is one of "communication of light with darkness." It's a fail.

Come fully into the light. Declare simply that "the words are spirit" and that just as Jesus told Peter, revelation and understanding only come "from the Father" whom is spirit. Then, if you wish to elaborate, elaborate the means by which the Father has done just that since the beginning. In doing so, you would be exonerated with God and with men.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Mr. Greene had a very powerful manner of speaking with his thundering voice and zeal of God, but to me it was not according to knowledge, even though I hold him in high regard for his love of the scriptures and in what he believed in. I used to past out his tract as well in the early seventies~he died in 1977 but his radio program still runs even until this day. His son David a local lawyer runs it~both of his sons are lawyers, maybe retired now, not sure. As a young Christian back then it brought sadness to my heart when he died~I went to his funeral.

The Lord be with you~RB

Yea, his tracts were so well done! I remember one was called "the Blood," or something like that and was all red. The Bible verses held interest and certainly touched the hearts of those who read it.

Since I could not possibly match Green's gift of speech and clarity, it was desirable to simply pass his tracts out, en masse, to the public. I think it reached quite a few people in my area. And yes, that was back in the early 70s. Thanks for the memories!

 

[covenantee]

Greetings Covenantee~First, God's word is its own dictionary, on how to define words being used, I gave some examples already above if you have read the posts posted so far.

Your position goes against the context of the Olivet discourse, in chapters 24, and 25. which we can prove if time is given to us to do so.

I'm confident that Strong's/Thayer's mastery of the Greek is reliable.

Was Jerusalem literally destroyed in 70 AD?

 

[Red Baker]

Your message is mixed. You started your first post, and now the one above, with a "face value", i.e. literary method of interpretation...and then finished denying it, but claiming both. If you speak out of both sides of your mouth, as you have demonstrated, your message is one of "communication of light with darkness." It's a fail.

Come fully into the light. Declare simply that "the words are spirit" and that just as Jesus told Peter, revelation and understanding only come "from the Father" whom is spirit. Then, if you wish to elaborate, elaborate the means by which the Father has done just that since the beginning. In doing so, you would be exonerated with God and with men.

Scott~read my post again above~I clearly said that I approach all scriptures at face value, and use all scriptures and the surrounding words of the context under consideration to determine how I should understand what is being said. Now, you believe what you want to believe about what I have said, but, once again I'm telling you my approach of searching for the truth.

 

[Red Baker]

I have only read a portion of what you submitted thus far. The way you are going about this is not reasonable, IMO. Flooding this thread with an entire book then expecting everyone else to keep up and be able to discuss/debate every single point you have raised thus far.

Greetings David~All one needs to do his address certain points along the way and I'll stop and answer as I go. I've done enough now to get me on my way, enough to get some of my points out there for discussions.

one thing I think you are not factoring in here, is this. In Luke 21, verse 20 and verse 27, there is a 2000 year gap between these events.

David, I have factored in just about everything that may come up, at least I think I have, we shall see.

Brother, there's no two thousand years gap between Luke 21:20 and verse 27.

I interpret Luke 21:20:

Luke 21:20​

“And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh."

Using:

Revelation 20:9​

“And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.”

The Jerusalem in Luke 21:20 is the new Jerusalem of the word of God, the true beloved city of the Great King!

There is no two thousand years gap period, but a "little season" ~ maybe around three hundred years or so~known only to God.

While in Matthew 24, verse 15 and verse 30, there is no 2000 year gap between these events. And verse 29 alone proves it.

I agree that there is no two thousand years of gap~actually there are no two thousand years of gap anywhere in Matthew 24 and 25!

Therefore, the events pertaining to Luke 21:20 are not the same events pertaining to Matthew 24:15.

Same events my brother. Yet I do agree that all Pretersits and Historicism have a major stumbling block in their way to come to the truth of Matthew 24,25, maybe less than the premill.

I'm Premil, not Amil, yet I'm not a Dispy. Though, I take Matthew 24:15 to be involving the end of this age, not 70 AD instead, I do not take it to be involving Jerusalem in the middle east and a rebuilt temple there.

That's good, it is a start, I once was there where you are.

I take it to be involving 2 Thessalonians 2,

So do I, maybe different than you do.

A lot of interpreters take 2 Thessalonians 2:4 to be involving Jerusalem in the middle east and a literal temple there. Preterists take it to mean the 2nd temple before it was destroyed. Dispies take it to be meaning a rebuilt temple in the future. Neither of these scenarios is even remotely supported via any of the other verses in this chapter. IOW, let's just ignore context here and interpret verse 4 in isolation and make it be about something none of the other verses in this chapter are remotely involving.

I take the temple in 2nd Thess 2 to be the professing churches throughout this world. Maybe I'll do a very brief post on 2nd Thess 2 in the morning before moving on.

 

[ScottA]

Scott~read my post again above~I clearly said that I approach all scriptures at face value, and use all scriptures and the surrounding words of the context under consideration to determine how I should understand what is being said. Now, you believe what you want to believe about what I have said, but, once again I'm telling you my approach of searching for the truth.

No need to read your post again--you've done it again, you've clearly declared taking scripture "at face value"--which is literary and not spiritual against Jesus' saying "The words that I speak to you are spirit."

You have disqualified yourself regarding the understanding of scripture.

 

[ScottA]

Brother, there's no two thousand years gap between Luke 21:20 and verse 27.



I agree that there is no two thousand years of gap~actually there are no two thousand years of gap anywhere in Matthew 24 and 25!

This much is good.

PS, I explained in the "Zechariah 14" thread, post #17

 

[Davidpt]

Brother, there's no two thousand years gap between Luke 21:20 and verse 27.

I interpret Luke 21:20:


Using:

The Jerusalem in Luke 21:20 is the new Jerusalem of the word of God, the true beloved city of the Great King!

There is no two thousand years gap period, but a "little season" ~ maybe around three hundred years or so~known only to God.

Of course there is a 2000 year gap between Luke 21:20 and Luke 21:27 if the former is involving 70 AD and the latter is involving His 2nd coming in the end of this age. Except you argue that the former is not involving 70 AD. But if it is, like some of us non Preterists tend to think, and that if verse 27 is involving the 2nd coming, it is then ludricrous to insist there is no 2000 year gap between these 2 events. That assuming the coming in verse 27 occurs within 2000 years after 70 AD took place.

But I do grasp, though I'm not an Amil, as to why you are connecting Luke 21:20 to Revelation 20:9 instead. One thing I have noticed myself is the following.

Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed(kukloo) with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

According to my Strong's kukloo is only used in 5 passages total. 2 of them are the following.

Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed(kukloo) with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

Revelation 20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed(kukloo) the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

What you seem to be missing though, is this. Which then makes me wonder, per some of your posts that you submitted that I read, where you were going on about how important context is, that you then disregard context altogether and insist Revelation 20:9 interprets Luke 21:20 involving the desolation of Jerusalem.

If these 2 passages are involving the same events, that obviously means the beloved city per Revelation 20:9 is meaning this same Jerusalem meant in Luke 21:20. And what does it say about the Jerusalem meant in Luke 21:20? Does it not say this---then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. As if that can be applied to the beloved city per Revelation 20:9, that it equals the desolation thereof is nigh.

When it comes to the Discourse it can't be all about the first century nor all about the final days of this age. It is involving both and in between even, thus there has to be a balance here, so to speak. As long as one at least agrees with this, the Discourse is mainly focusing on the church during His ascension through His return, and what happens after He returns, that is the important thing. 70 AD was just something that happened during His ascension, it was never the main focus of the Discourse, though. Jesus could see beyond 70 AD, obviously. Yet, Preterists, per their interpretation of the Discourse give the impression that He couldn't.

 

[Red Baker]

Of course there is a 2000 year gap between Luke 21:20 and Luke 21:27 if the former is involving 70 AD and the latter is involving His 2nd coming in the end of this age. Except you argue that the former is not involving 70 AD. But if it is, like some of us non Preterists tend to think, and that if verse 27 is involving the 2nd coming, it is then ludicrous to insist there is no 2000 year gap between these 2 events. That assuming the coming in verse 27 occurs within 2000 years after 70 AD took place.

Thank you for your godly response back and well thought out ~ I enjoyed reading such and having the opportunity to address such.

David, I highlighted and underscored my position above. 70 A.D. is a doctrine taught by some ( even righteous people, God fearing people ) and though it is, is it not a bible doctrine. If I was on an island with nothing but the word of God, and born again, and had never heard of 70 A. D. theory, then I would assure you I would not leave the island preaching such an heresy. 70 A. D. must be force into the scriptures ~much like one of my grandson's once did to a puzzle I had bought him to put together a few years back~when he was putting the simple John Deere tractor puzzle together and came to a one piece that would not fit, he stood up, jack his leg up and came down with all of his might and try to slam the piece in the place he thought it should go~I said Luke that's not how you do puzzles, of course he knows better today being in school working on being be a Neurosurgeon. But many do the same with the word of God that Luke did with his John Deere puzzle, if it does not fit, they still try to force their will into making it fit by using extra biblical means like Josephus' wars of the Jews, their main go to support~shame on them, the word of God alone interprets itself of its truth contained therein.

What you seem to be missing though, is this. Which then makes me wonder, per some of your posts that you submitted that I read, where you were going on about how important context is, that you then disregard context altogether and insist Revelation 20:9 interprets Luke 21:20 involving the desolation of Jerusalem.

David, I do practice what I believe and teach~that's why I do not believe that after the death of Jesus Christ, Jerusalem that then was had any prophetic prophecy in the scriptures unfulfilled; neither their temple, for God was forever finished with both..... they had served their purpose in God Prophetic Timeline of bible prophecies.

The true apple of God's eye that we should pray for is the New Jerusalem, the bride of Jesus Christ made up of both Jews and Gentiles as one holy temple for God's eternal dwelling place........ the true Tabernacle of David promised in the holy scriptures. Fallen in Adam, raised up in Jesus Christ.

When it comes to the Discourse it can't be all about the first century nor all about the final days of this age. It is involving both and in between even, thus there has to be a balance here, so to speak. As long as one at least agrees with this, the Discourse is mainly focusing on the church during His ascension through His return, and what happens after He returns, that is the important thing. 70 AD was just something that happened during His ascension, it was never the main focus of the Discourse, though. Jesus could see beyond 70 AD, obviously. Yet, Preterists, per their interpretation of the Discourse give the impression that He couldn't.

My brother, as long as folk labor to make them about both, they will ahve trouble understanding Matthew 24,25, and related scriptures. As a younger Christian I went through the same battle of trying to make them speak about both, but came to realized that 70 A.D. was a hoax being used of the devil to keep people from seeing the truth, leaving them unprepared for the evil last days that shall come upon the saints, within the professing churches throughout this world.

That's why both Jesus and Paul started out both place when speaking on the same subject and said:

Matthew 24:4​

“And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.”

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;”

 

[Red Baker]

No need to read your post again--you've done it again, you've clearly declared taking scripture "at face value"--which is literary and not spiritual against Jesus' saying "The words that I speak to you are spirit."

You have disqualified yourself regarding the understanding of scripture.

I'm not going to continually repeat myself to you Scott. If you read my post then you know that I do understand them in a spiritual sense many times over. I just do not force Josephus' wars of the Jews into the scriptures to twist and pervert them to try to make them say something they are not saying. I'm not here to please those people that practice corrupting God's word in that manner~but expose their errors. I do not use extra biblical means to interpret God's word, I use his own testimony alone to interpret what he is given to us as a witness to the truth.

If following only the word of God disqualifies me in your eyes, so be it~you have a problem to deal with, not me.

 

[covenantee]

70 A.D. is a doctrine taught by some ( even righteous people, God fearing people ) and though it is, is it not a bible doctrine.

Was Jerusalem literally destroyed in 70 AD?

Why no answer to such a simple question?

 

[ScottA]

I'm not going to continually repeat myself to you Scott. If you read my post then you know that I do understand them in a spiritual sense many times over. I just do not force Josephus' wars of the Jews into the scriptures to twist and pervert them to try to make them say something they are not saying. I'm not here to please those people that practice corrupting God's word in that manner~but expose their errors. I do not use extra biblical means to interpret God's word, I use his own testimony alone to interpret what he is given to us as a witness to the truth.

If following only the word of God disqualifies me in your eyes, so be it~you have a problem to deal with, not me.

Good. I am not going to continually repeat myself either.

But now that I have offended you, perhaps you have worded your own method and approach in just the right way to understand what I have been saying. Perhaps you do understand some scriptures ("many times") spiritually, but what I have been trying to impress upon you is the biblically stated issue of "his own testimony alone to interpret what he has given to us"...if both the word and confirmation are only what is written.

In other words, the scriptures themselves declare that in their "natural" or literary form, the words are even "foolishness" 1 Corinthians 2:14. Thus, using scripture to confirm scripture, is likely to be foolishness to confirm foolishness, the false justification of error. Which is not the means by which Christ has determined to build His church, but rather by what comes forth from the Father, whom is spirit...which does not come but by the Spirit. Which is to say, the dilemma is not that the words are not spirit, but rather that they may not be taken as such.

So yes, sight the scriptures, even read them at face value, but understand that face value is not enough and perhaps even foolishness. For example: The story of Cain and Abel is what? At face value it is a tragic story of two brothers, the sons of Adam. But by the Spirit, I tell you (what you have likely never heard)--that it is the story of the first Adam and the Last the result of the fall. Which is not foolishness as some would define foolishness, but in terms of understanding...it is indeed.

 

[Ronald D Milam]

I'm not going to continually repeat myself to you Scott. If you read my post then you know that I do understand them in a spiritual sense many times over. I just do not force Josephus' wars of the Jews into the scriptures to twist and pervert them to try to make them say something they are not saying. I'm not here to please those people that practice corrupting God's word in that manner~but expose their errors. I do not use extra biblical means to interpret God's word, I use his own testimony alone to interpret what he is given to us as a witness to the truth.

If following only the word of God disqualifies me in your eyes, so be it~you have a problem to deal with, not me.

Give it a rest man, no one is coming here to read a person who shouldn't be teaching, try to teach about Matt. 24. Anytime someone has to post a book to define one chapter its a wasted effort, if you can't do as I did and teach it in one post you really do not know what you are talking about and HINT: no one will read it. And that is our job, to teach the Gospel AND to get people to listen.

Most here are already Christians, I assume, you can't talk about the bible with other like minded people by copy and pasting a long drawn out dissertation. I can teach the whole book of Revelation in one post !!