Olivet Discourse revisited

[covenantee]

We are not talking about Noah, Jesus, nor the first century. We are talking about your interpretation.

From your post 269: "These conditions existed since Noah's day."

You were talking about Noah.

 

[covenantee]

Not after leaving the temple.

See post 275.

 

[Timtofly]

Which part of it? Not all of it did. Luke 21:20-24 is a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20. That happened in 70 AD, but the rest either has happened on an ongoing basis or will happen in the future (second coming of Jesus, gathering of the elect, destruction of unbelievers, the judgment).

"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: ) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:"

That is not the same event as this:

"And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled."

They fled Judea in 66AD. That is when they saw the Roman armies coming as a flood. There were already Roman armies occupying Jerusalem for decades. It was not the Roman presence that was an AoD. Josephus already covered that issue when Pilate was sent to Judea. The Jews complained about Roman abominations set up in Jerusalem, then. Pilate removed them. But that was over 50 years prior to 66AD. The Roman armies are not the AoD. They were already "set up" before Jesus was even baptized. No one was fleeing during the earthly ministry of Jesus.

Luke pointed out that in 66AD, the desolation would be nigh. Josephes said it happened in 70AD, not Luke. The words "desolation is nigh" was as close as Luke got to the actual destruction of Jerusalem, and subsequently the temple.


"And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled."

Trodden down could mean anything, no? This is what Paul said about it:

"I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew....the rest were blinded. According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear.... Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."

So Jerusalem will be trodden under foot until the Second Coming. Then will be the time of Jacob's trouble, before full restoration happens, the millennium reign.

Luke did not even say utterly destroyed until the Second Coming. That would be a lie. People still struggled to live there even after 70AD. But you all seem to miss the point that at the Second Coming is not utter destruction either.

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until"

You don't accept this. You claim 70AD was the end and that the Second Coming is the end, and you remain antagonistic to the point, Jacob's trouble is after the Second Coming, and that Jerusalem will be restored at that point. You declare all is finished and no restoration happens to current Jerusalem. You replaced Israel in the first century with the church, and you jump to Revelation 21 and a new creation, instead of the blindness removed from Israel, and the earth restored for another 1,000 years, called the Day of the Lord.

 

[Timtofly]

What you think belongs in 70 AD, and what actually belongs in 70 AD, are vastly different.

Here's something that does belong in 70 AD.

DECEIVERS

Matthew: “And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you, For many shall come in my name saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many” (24:4,5).
Mark: “And Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you; For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many” (13:5,6).
Luke: “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” (21:8).

We notice that all three accounts warn about deceivers. But Luke’s account explains WHEN these things would happen. Jesus Said: “And the time DRAWETH NEAR: go ye not therefore after them.” Jesus was not talking about something that would take place hundreds or thousands of years later. Jesus was warning his disciples about something that was drawing near in their time. This is plain.

Did such deceivers or false Christs arise and deceive many in those years before the destruction of Jerusalem? Yes.

According to Josephus, the noted Jewish historian, twelve years after our Saviour’s death, a certain impostor named Theudas persuaded a great multitude to follow him to the river Jordan which he claimed would divide for their passage. At the time of Felix (who is mentioned in the book of Acts), the country of the Jews was filled with impostors who Felix had put to death EVERY DAY — a statement which indicates that there were many of such in those days.

An Egyptian who “pretended to be a prophet” gathered 30,000 men, claiming that he would show “how, at his command, the walls of Jerusalem would fall down.”

Another deceiver was Simon, a sorcerer, who led people to believe he was the great power of God (See Acts 8). According to Irenaeus, Simon claimed to be the Son of God and creator of angels. Jerome says that he claimed to be the Word of God, the Almighty. Justin relates that he went to Rome and was acclaimed as a god by his magical powers.

Origen mentions a certain wonder-worker, Dositheus, who claimed he was the Christ foretold by Moses. Another deceiver in those days was Barchochebas who, according to Jerome, claimed to vomit flames. Bar-jesus is mentioned in Acts 13:6 as a sorcerer and false prophet.

These are examples of the deceivers of whom history says there were a great number, and of whom Jesus had prophesied that there would be “many.”

Great Prophecies of the Bible
Ralph Woodrow

Even today there are antichrist and false decievers. There will even be false Messiahs after the Second Coming. That won't stop until all of Adam's dead corruptible flesh is removed from the earth.

Surely that phenomenon did not end in 70AD?

 

[Timtofly]

That's what I thought you believed and I agree. But, Timtofly said you "claim the events of the Second Coming as portrayed in Matthew 24 all happened in 70AD.". Just another lie from him.

Well every time I pointed out the facts, he disagreed. How was I supposed to know he was lying or not? He never stated his position, just kept calling me the liar. You are still doing so, to cover your own tracks.

I don't read minds, just post, and all his posts indicated that was his position. So lying about people is not what I was posting.

Why do you all even post post calling other people liars? Do you read minds?

All I ever posted was that Matthew is talking about the Second Coming and Luke is talking about 70AD. He kept disagreeing. If he agreed, he should have never replied at all. Not once has he posted I was correct, even if he believed it.

 

[Timtofly]

From your post 269: "These conditions existed since Noah's day."

You were talking about Noah.

No, we were talking about your interpretation of Scripture.

 

[covenantee]

Even today there are antichrist and false decievers. There will even be false Messiahs after the Second Coming. That won't stop until all of Adam's dead corruptible flesh is removed from the earth.

Surely that phenomenon did not end in 70AD?

If you have credible evidence disproving what has been recorded in Scripture and history proving Jesus' prophecy, please present your evidence.

 

[covenantee]

No, we were talking about your interpretation of Scripture.

"These conditions existed since Noah's day."

See Noah?

 

[covenantee]

All I ever posted was that Matthew is talking about the Second Coming and Luke is talking about 70AD.

Provide a link(s) to your post(s) about Matthew and Luke to refresh our memories.

 

[covenantee]

"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: ) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:"

That is not the same event as this:

"And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled."

Provide just one name, date, source, and verbatim quote from any recognized historic orthodox Christian exegete who claims that they are not the same event.

Just one.

 

[Behold]

Even today there are antichrist and false decievers. There will even be false Messiahs after the Second Coming.

There have been about 600 "false messiah's" recorded in History since the Cross was Raised.

The Only Real one is coming back soon.

The fake ones wont be going back with Him.

 

[Timtofly]

Provide a link(s) to your post(s) about Matthew and Luke to refresh our memories.

You quoted a post that said Luke was talking about the first century, and Matthew is talking about the Second Coming. This post can once again refresh the point.

 

[Timtofly]

Provide just one name, date, source, and verbatim quote from any recognized historic orthodox Christian exegete who claims that they are not the same event.

Just one.

Do you want them to get involved in the thread?

 

[covenantee]

Do you want them to get involved in the thread?

There is no "them" to get involved, since you are unable to provide any example of "them".

 

[Timtofly]

There is no "them" to get involved, since you are unable to provide any example of "them".

None of you have proved your point. So I don't have to believe you either. Matthew 24 is not about the first century. It is about the generation who sees the Second Coming. Luke 21 is about the generation that sees the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. So no, not the same event. Read the Scripture, not your dead buddies writings of another time period.

 

[covenantee]

None of you have proved your point. So I don't have to believe you either. Matthew 24 is not about the first century. It is about the generation who sees the Second Coming. Luke 21 is about the generation that sees the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. So no, not the same event. Read the Scripture, not your dead buddies writings of another time period.

What to believe?

1. Your cultic modernism
2. Historic orthodox Christianity

Do you need a hint?

 

[quietthinker]

I don't suffer any illusions about being able to change many minds, but I still think it's worth the effort. I've been studying this many years, and it really seems to be a headache in the study of biblical prophecy. Way back in the early 70s I read Hal Lindsey's book, "The Late Great Planet Earth," and really enjoyed it. He saw amazing coincidences between the news of our time and biblical prophecies that seem to be coming to precise fulfillment.

Unfortunately, Lindsey did something that I believe has been disastrous to the understanding of biblical prophecy. And I'm sure he's not the only one. He had a tremendous desire to convert biblical prophecies that had already been fulfilled into future prophecies. Why waste time reading prophecies that had already been fulfilled, such as prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon? Why not focus on prophecies that have yet to be fulfilled so that we can show people how God's word is still relevant in our own day?

And so, Lindsey converted what Jesus said in his Olivet Discourse from being about the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans to being an endtime prophecy of the generation in which Israel would be reborn as a nation. The passage reads, "This generation will not pass away until all these things take place." This prophecy was actually being spoken about Jesus' own generation--"this generation" referred to the generation in which Jesus lived.

But Lindsey converted this into a prophecy of the last generation. "This generation" was, for Lindsey, the generation that saw the rebirth of the Israeli nation. The generation that sees the rebirth of Israel would not pass away until the Rapture of the Church takes place first.

Well sadly, when many like myself who like to point out this error do so we are called "Preterists" as a name of insult. Preterists was a particular school of thought that arose in history to declare not just that "this generation" was fulfilled in the Roman conquest, but also that the *entirety of the book of Revelation* was fulfilled in the Early Church.

I don't believe that--I'm not a Preterist. But I do believe that Preterists were at least partly right, in particular the part about "this generation" referring to the conquest of Jerusalem by Rome. I believe that the book of Revelation does refer to the endtimes, when the Antichrist will arise and reign for 3.5 years.

So we have this battle between the choice between an historial fulfillment or a future fulfillment. Can we know the difference? Of course we can, but often a person is taught a particular position when he is moldable, and is not likely to change his or her position without a firm conviction that the person they trusted was not entirely trustworthy. Since Lindsey has been a faithful Christian throughout his life, and has done a lot of good, it is difficult to break trust in him in areas where he has been wrong.

My purpose here is not to disparage teachers like Lindsey, but only to point out that good people can at times be wrong. Once you begin with a wrong point of view, a lot of the picture gets muddied, and a lot of rationalization takes place. In the end, the Olivet Discourse can become nearly incomprehensible. Even trying to look at it correctly finds obstacles because so many of the points have been corrupted along with the main point. What is the "great tribulation?" What are "all these things?"

All of these questions can be quite easily answered, but not if one has been indoctrinated in a false position, and has therefore corrupted his view on all of the points necessary to make his picture consistent. "All these things" becomes "the Rapture." The "great tribulation" becomes "the reign of Antichrist."

In reality, "all these things" in context was only ever meant to refer not to Christ's return but to the main point, referring to all the things connected with the destruction of Jerusalem, including the destruction of the temple, and the initial signs that presaged that event. The "great tribulation" explicitly described the fall out from the destruction of Jerusalem in an age-long exile of the Jewish People.

But I'm not going to convince many people, although I would wish to. Understanding historical prophecies have great value in teaching moral lessons, quite apart from proving prophecies are still coming true today. The Babylonian Judgment teaches us how we need to remain faithful to God's moral laws, unlike Israel who committed gross idolatry in the days before their capture and exile.

We do not need to make the Olivet Discourse entirely about the future, including the rebirth of Israel and the rise of Antichrist. There is plenty in that discourse that describes both historically-fulfilled prophecy and future prophecy. We do not need the Abomination of Desolation to be about the Antichrist and the Great Tribulation to be about the Reign of Antichrist. The exile of the Jews described in that Discourse is still taking place today, until the nation of Israel is restored to faith at Christ's return.

It's sad but it's now 2023, and well past the failure of Lindsey's prediction that the Rapture of the Church would take place in the generation of Israel's rebirth (1948). We're way overdue to look at this errant interpretation of the Olivet Discourse. And we need to get past the name-calling and false association with Preterism. The Early Church Fathers held to the historical interpretation of this Discourse, and I think we should too, even if certain terms continue to represent some headaches. Thanks for listening.

Interesting presentation Randy.

The Olivet discourse I believe was Jesus' seminal statement of his mission (The Kingdom of God) and how it works.
It was a statement which characterises the heart of God.....no force, no violence. Quiet contrary to what the Jews expected of their Messiah and what they deemed 'liberation'..... Quite contrary to how many Christians today believe God will behave towards his enemies in the future.

The Middle Ages saw an awakening and all the reformers in that period agreed that the anti-christ was the Pope. Rome could not counter the position until one of its shining lights, a Jesuit by the name of Francisco Ribera became the champion of the Counter-Reformation by presenting his theory on the interpretation on many of the prophecies where the anti-christ is spoken of.
It became known as Futurism. This appeared to take the heat of the Roman system and push the whole anti-christ thing far into the future.
Most protestants today believe Ribera's exegesis, totally unaware of its origins and the package it peddles. They are unwittingly making an 'image to the beast'
They have left behind Jesus' seminal speech as difficult to understand. No wonder, they have taken the bait and swallowed the poison cleverly engineered by the Prince of Darkness.

 

[ewq1938]

Interesting presentation Randy.

The Olivet discourse I believe was Jesus' seminal statement of his mission (The Kingdom of God) and how it works.
It was a statement which characterises the heart of God.....no force, no violence.

lol...you haven't read the Olivet Discourse...there is force and violence in it.

Mat 25:25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
Mat 25:26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
Mat 25:27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
Mat 25:28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
Mat 25:29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
Mat 25:30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

 

[quietthinker]

lol...you haven't read the Olivet Discourse...there is force and violence in it.

Mat 25:25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
Mat 25:26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
Mat 25:27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
Mat 25:28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
Mat 25:29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
Mat 25:30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

The Olivet Discourse?.....Matthew 5

 

[ewq1938]

The Olivet Discourse?.....Matthew 5

The OD is found in Matthew 24-25, not in Matthew 5.