The "watch rapture view"

[Spiritual Israelite]

Then in your view is the abomination of desolation set up in Daniel 12:11-12 spoken of by Daniel the prophet unfilled or not ?

LOL. Obviously, it is, but I believe Jesus was referring to Daniel 9:26-27 and explained why. It's clear to me that He had to be referring to something that was prophesied in the book of Daniel in relation to the destruction of the temple buildings since He was asked when that would happen. The most obvious choice there is Daniel 9:26-27 since it refers to the destruction of the city and the sanctuary.

Edit: When I said "obviously, it is..." I meant that it was spoken of by Daniel the prophet. I misread the question and didn't catch that you were asking if it was unfilled or not.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That’s a lie—and a blatant misrepresentation of what I actually said.

I never denied that there were churches in Judea that God preserved. What I did challenge is the false idea of some distinct theological category called “the Judaean Church” as if it were a separate class within the Body of Christ to built your flawed preterism doctrine upon. Paul mentions “churches in Judea” (Galatians 1:22) just as he mentions churches in Galatia, Macedonia, etc. Those are regional congregations—not separate doctrinal entities.

What I said—and still say—is this: there is one true Church, made up of ALL the elect, from every region, nation, and generation. That includes the faithful in Judea, but it is not limited to them, nor elevated into some separate status like your so-called “Judaean Church.”

So stop twisting my words. If you want to debate doctrine, do it with honesty and integrity—not by misrepresenting what I never said. Bearing false witness doesn't strengthen your argument—it just exposes the weakness of it. No wonder your credibility is falling apart here.

LOL. Says the guy who called me "the natural man" (1 Cor 2:14), which refers to an unsaved person without the Holy Spirit. That's your way of speaking with honesty and integrity? Who do you think you're fooling? You are fooling no one with your holier than thou act.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

...if you receive it. I noticed that you failed to mention the church in Ephesus and Laodicea.

I believe that the seven churches of Revelation 2 and 3 located in Asia (what is now Turkey) are used to represent the "Universal Church." Oh no, you must panic attack becasue of the forbidden word you don't want to hear... "universal."

So, do you deny that they were seven actual churches in the first century Roman province of Asia or do you believe that they were actual churches, but also represented the universal church?

In Revelation 2 and 3, Jesus said some things that applied directly to those first century churches only and some things that applied to the entire church not only back then, but ever since then until now and until Christ returns.

 

[Douggg]

LOL. Obviously, it is, but I believe Jesus was referring to Daniel 9:26-27 and explained why. It's clear to me that He had to be referring to something that was prophesied in the book of Daniel in relation to the destruction of the temple buildings since He was asked when that would happen. The most obvious choice there is Daniel 9:26-27 since it refers to the destruction of the city and the sanctuary.

Daniel 9:26 is referring to the temple and city destroyed in 70ad. But Daniel 9:27 is end times, when the prince that shall come from the people who destroyed the temple and city confirms the covenant for 7 years.

The reference to abominations is in Daniel 9:27, the end times 7 years. Those 7 years are the same 7 years that are in Ezekiel 39:9 following the end times Gog/Magog attack on Israel.

 

[covenantee]

I gave my reasons for why I see it the way I do and you addressed none of them. If you can explain convincingly why Jesus would have talked about global things in relation to the coming fulfillment of a local event, then feel free. But, I can't make any sense of that.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

That's fine with me. We've already discussed it at length before, so there's no need to repeat everything.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Daniel 9:26 is referring to the temple and city destroyed in 70ad.

Correct.

But Daniel 9:27 is end times,

Wrong. Only doctrinal bias would cause you to think that Daniel 9:27 is not directly related to Daniel 9:26.

when the prince that shall come from the people who destroyed the temple and city confirms the covenant for 7 years.

Look at how you twist scripture to make it say what you want it to say. It does not say "the prince that shall come from the people". It says "the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary". That means it's talking about someone who was the prince of the people who destroyed the city and the sanctuary. The prince that shall come was already mentioned in Daniel 9:25 and was identified as Messiah the Prince, which we know is Jesus. The city and the sanctuary were destroyed because of most Jews rebelling against God and rejecting the Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ. So, they were ultimately responsible for the destruction of the city and the sanctuary "because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation" (Luke 19:44).

 

[Davidpt]

Daniel 9:26 is referring to the temple and city destroyed in 70ad. But Daniel 9:27 is end times, when the prince that shall come from the people who destroyed the temple and city confirms the covenant for 7 years.

The reference to abominations is in Daniel 9:27, the end times 7 years. Those 7 years are the same 7 years that are in Ezekiel 39:9 following the end times Gog/Magog attack on Israel.

Per your interpretation how do you figure that makes sense, what you are proposing about verse 26 in light of verse 27 and how you, not me, tend to interpret verse 27?

Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.


In verse 27 you have the first pronoun and all all pronouns in verse 27 meaning a future AC. Yet, obviously, the prince that is to come meant in verse 26 has to be meaning during verse 27 except you have verse 26 involving 70 AD. This prince that shall come can't still be present 2000 years later in order to fulfill verse 27 if he was already present 2000 years earlier. Nor can verse 26 be fulfilled without this prince having come first. Not to mention, by applying verse 26 to 70 AD this means we are required to take the prince that shall come as a literal prince living during those days, Titus in this case. IOW, your interpretation is contradicting things left and right. Nothing remotely coherent about it.

The way I tend to try and solve this, nothing in verse 26 is involving 70 AD to begin with. Some of it is involving the first half of the 70th week followed by a gap, and that the rest f it is involving the 2nd half of the 70th week after this gap. It basically looks like this.

26a And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself--27a And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease--thus the first half of the 70th week then followed by a gap.

26b and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined---27b and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate--thus the 2nd half of the 70th week after this gap has been fulfilled--basically meaning the 42 month reign of the beast, for one.

IOW, per my view none of this is meaning in the literal sense where it is involving literal temples and literal cities, meaning in my case, pertaining to 26b and 27b. One cannot divorce 27b from that of 70th week. The same way one can't divorce anything recorded in verse 25 from that of the first 69 weeks. No one would do that with the latter. Why would anyone then do that with the former? Where is the consistency in any of that? Where is there no cherry picking in any of that?

 

[covenantee]

Oh sure, God was totally referring to some special “Judean Church” in prophecy—because that phrase is everywhere in Scripture, right? Please. I know for a fact that’s not what the Lord had in mind. But hey, what can you expect from people who clearly have no idea what Jesus was actually talking about? I’ll leave it to the Lord to judge—and I’m more than comfortable with that.

Oh yes, and we must never use the expression "Christian Church"—because that phrase is everywhere in Scripture, right?

You waste all of your time conjuring up hallucinatory apparitions which you then attack in an attempt to demonstrate spiritual superiority.

Classic gnosis.

 

[Douggg]

The prince that shall come was already mentioned in Daniel 9:25 and was identified as Messiah the Prince, which we know is Jesus. The city and the sanctuary were destroyed because of most Jews rebelling against God and rejecting the Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ.

The Romans destroyed the temple and the sanctuary. The prince who shall come is associated with the Romans. Jesus was a Jew, not associated with the Romans..

And since you agree that the abomination of desolation set up of Daniel 12:11-12 has not been fulfilled yet, when and under what circumstances is it going to be fulfilled ?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The Romans destroyed the temple and the sanctuary.

But, who were the ones ultimately responsible for it? The Jews who rejected Jesus. Their city and temple were destroyed "because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation." (Luke 19:44). Read Luke 19:41-44 to see why their city was destroyed.

The prince who shall come is associated with the Romans.

If the people of the prince were the Romans, then the prince would be Titus or some other Roman leader at the time. In no way, shape or form does it indicate that the people of the prince to come would not actually have the prince to come as their prince. You are horribly twisting the text to fit your doctrine. You have no shame. You will twist any text you need to in order to make it fit your doctrine. You do that often and it's just shameful.

And since you agree that the abomination of desolation set up of Daniel 12:11-12 has not been fulfilled yet, when and under what circumstances is it going to be fulfilled ?

Did I say that I agree with that? I don't think I did. Edit: I misread your earlier question and didn't notice you were asking if it was fulfilled or not. So, when I said "it is" I just meant it was a prophecy of Daniel. I thought you were just asking if it was a prophecy of Daniel. I'm not sure what Daniel 12:11-12 is about and neither are you. We can speculate all day long, but that proves nothing. But, there is no clear indication that it has anything to do with the destruction of the city and the sanctuary like Daniel 9:26-27 is about, so I see no basis for thinking Jesus had anything in mind besides Daniel 9:26-27 since He was answering a question about the timing of the destruction of the temple buildings. Do you see anything in Daniel 12:11-12 that it relates to people needing to flee to the mountains once the abomination of desolation was seen?

 

[TribulationSigns]

So, you're saying you think I'm not saved? Or are you not able to discern that the natural man is not saved?

If you are saying that I'm not saved, then you have a much bigger problem than misinterpreting the Olivet Discourse. You will be judged with the same measure that you are judging me if you are saying that I'm not saved. You better repent of that or you're going to be in for a rude awakening on judgment day.

Let’s set the record straight—I never said you weren’t saved. That’s a false accusation, and you know it. Don’t put words in my mouth just because you’re uncomfortable being challenged on doctrine.


I’ve addressed your interpretation, not your salvation. If you can’t separate a doctrinal disagreement from a personal attack, that’s on you—not me. And throwing around threats about judgment day because someone disagrees with your eschatology? That says more about your pride than your theology.

If you're confident in your salvation, great. But don’t twist my words to create drama that isn't there. I’ll stand before God for what I did say—not for the straw man you're trying to build.

To have spiritual discernment means you can discern between literal and figurative text.

I did, per God's spiritualizing His Word.

It doens't mean to spiritualize as much scripture as you possibly can the way you do.

LOL.

You are the one lacking spiritual discernment.

You have no clues.

You can't even discern that Satan is a real, living spirit being. A fallen angel who is the leader of all of the fallen angels (Matthew 25:41, Rev 12:9). And you're trying to tell me I'm spiritually blind? You have a very active imagination that you attribute to the Holy Spirit revealing things to you. You can't get much more spiritually blind than when you attribute things you conjure up in you imagination to things that the Spirit is supposedly revealing to you.

First of all, don’t accuse me of denying truth when you’re the one assuming what I haven’t even fully explained yet. I never said Satan isn’t real—I said he’s not a created living being like you imagine. What I do say—and will stand by—is that “Satan” represents the spirit of man in rebellion against God, not some feathered-winged creature from mythology.


Let’s start with some facts:

The word “angel” simply means messenger—not necessarily a supernatural being with wings. The Bible even calls men “angels” or messengers (e.g., Revelation 2–3 to the “angels” of the churches—human messengers). You’ve let tradition (or your Sunday School with images of the devil drawings) define your theology instead of Scripture.


Matthew 25:41 and Revelation 12:9 use apocalyptic and symbolic language. Revelation is not a literal news report—it’s a vision filled with signs and figures (Revelation 1:1). “The great dragon… that ancient serpent, called the devil, or Satan…” is symbolic language—not a physical biography of a winged creature thrown out of the sky.

Satan is real—but not in the way Hollywood, church tradition or Sunday School paints him. He is the SPIRIT of opposition, the adversarial nature within fallen man, and the influence that opposes truth. That’s why Jesus said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan” (Matthew 16:23). Was Peter possessed by a fallen angel? No! He was speaking man’s will, not God’s. That’s the point.

So before you accuse me of being spiritually blind, take a hard look at where your own definitions are coming from. If they don’t come from Scripture rightly divided, then you’re just repeating inherited traditions and calling them truth.

By the way, you have not answered my questions about Lucifer LOL. Go start a new thread if you want to discuss Lucifer/Satan.

I mock your false interpretations.

Like the Pharisees mocked Christ. Got it.

You can't even discern that Jesus predicted the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple buildings and it happened just as He said it did.

Blah blah blah...

We should be celebrating His prophetic accuracy and foreknowledge, but instead you deny that He said anything about it.

Ahem...

You can't even discern that the reason it happened was because of the rebellion of most Jews against Christ and His gospel. So, what happened was God's punishment against them. It shows that God does not mess around when it comes to sin and rebellion. It will be punished if people don't repent.

(patting on your back). You’re missing the true judgment of God

It didn’t begin with the stones of the temple falling in 70 AD. The real judgment already took place at the cross, when Israel’s religious leaders rejected their Messiah and God removed their spiritual authority and transferred the kingdom.


Jesus said it plainly in Matthew 21:43:

“Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing its fruit.”
This happened at the cross—not 40 years later. The judgment was spiritual, immediate, and decisive.

When Christ died, the veil of the temple was torn (Matthew 27:51)—a clear sign from God that the Old Covenant system was finished, and His presence would no longer dwell in that physical temple. Jesus himself is the new temple:

John 2:19
“Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

(Verse 21 clarifies: “But he was speaking about the temple of his body.”)

The physical temple in Jerusalem was just a shadow. Christ fulfilled it. Once He died and rose, that old system was obsolete.

As Hebrews 8:13 says:

“In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.”

The destruction in 70 AD was a visible confirmation of the judgment that had already occurred at Calvary—it was not the main event. By the time Rome destroyed the temple, God had long since moved His dwelling to the hearts of believers and they are already gone into the nations:

1 Corinthians 3:16

“Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?”

So no, God didn’t “finally” punish the Jews in 70 AD—He already had. The kingdom was removed, the authority transferred, and the true temple raised in Christ. Clinging to 70 AD as the primary judgment only reveals a carnal view of prophecy, obsessed with buildings, dates and writing of Josephus instead of recognizing what God did through the cross.

That's because of your lack of spiritual discernment.

(chuckle).

LOL! I am very far from being a dispensationalist. You are just making a complete fool of yourself with every comment you make.

You say you’re not a dispensationalist, yet you’re dividing the Olivet Discourse into two separate audiences—one for the Jews and one for the Church. That is dispensationalism, whether you want to wear the label or not. Deal with it.

 

[TribulationSigns]

So, do you deny that they were seven actual churches in the first century Roman province of Asia or do you believe that they were actual churches, but also represented the universal church?

In Revelation 2 and 3, Jesus said some things that applied directly to those first century churches only and some things that applied to the entire church not only back then, but ever since then until now and until Christ returns.

Let’s clear this up, because your question reveals the exact contradiction I’ve been pointing out!

No, I don’t deny that there were seven literal churches in the Roman province of Asia in the first century. That’s a historical fact. But where you go wrong is in claiming that Jesus was speaking partly to them and partly to a universal Church spread across all time—as if He was splitting His words into two categories. That’s a dangerous interpretive leap.


The reality is: those seven churches were literal, but they also functioned as a complete representation of the universal Church throughout the ages. That’s why Jesus ends each letter with:

“He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.” (Revelation 2–3)

Notice: not just “to Ephesus” or “to Sardis,” but to all the churches. The message to each was intended for the whole Church, then and now. Hello?!

You can’t have it both ways. You say you believe in the unity of the Church across time, but then you divide Christ’s message into “some for them, some for us,” as if Revelation 2–3 is a patchwork quilt of temporary and eternal truths. That’s not how Scripture speaks. Jesus didn’t write footnotes into His letters saying, “This part is for the 1st century only.” You’re imposing that division—not the text.

So yes, they were real churches—but they were also used by God to speak to the whole Church. Just like with the temple! Stop fragmenting the Body of Christ and trying to assign expiration dates to His Word. Truth doesn’t change with geography or time.

 

[covenantee]

The prince who shall come is associated with the Romans. Jesus was a Jew, not associated with the Romans..

Grammar.
Daniel 9:26 - "the prince"
Referent/antecedent:
Daniel 9:25 - "the Messiah the Prince"

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Let’s set the record straight—I never said you weren’t saved. That’s a false accusation, and you know it. Don’t put words in my mouth just because you’re uncomfortable being challenged on doctrine.

Buddy, you need to take a step back and evaluate yourself and think first for once before you post. You attributed the natural man of 1 Corinthians 2:14. The natural man does not have the Holy Spirit dwelling in him. The natural man is not saved. So, you associating me with the natural man comes across as you saying that I'm not saved. Are you so lacking in spiritual discernment that you didn't know that the natural man refers to someone who is not saved and does not have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them?

I’ve addressed your interpretation, not your salvation. If you can’t separate a doctrinal disagreement from a personal attack, that’s on you—not me.

It's on you for associating me with the natural man who doesn't have the Holy Spirit. Don't blame me if it wasn't your intention to imply that you think I'm not saved. Maybe you better actually think for once before you speak next time.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Buddy, you need to take a step back and evaluate yourself and think first for once before you post. You attributed the natural man of 1 Corinthians 2:14. The natural man does not have the Holy Spirit dwelling in him. The natural man is not saved. So, you associating me with the natural man comes across as you saying that I'm not saved. Are you so lacking in spiritual discernment that you didn't know that the natural man refers to someone who is not saved and does not have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them?


It's on you for associating me with the natural man who doesn't have the Holy Spirit. Don't blame me if it wasn't your intention to imply that you think I'm not saved. Maybe you better actually think for once before you speak next time.

Nope. It is to point out that you're interpreting spiritual matters—specifically, prophecy—through a carnal or natural lens rather than a spiritual one.

Paul contrasts the natural and spiritual mind, not just in terms of salvation, but in terms of discernment. A believer can still think carnally or interpret Scripture naturally—just like the Corinthians themselves, whom Paul addressed as “carnal” (1 Cor. 3:1-3), not because they were unsaved, but because they weren’t walking in spiritual understanding.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Let’s clear this up, because your question reveals the exact contradiction I’ve been pointing out!

No, I don’t deny that there were seven literal churches in the Roman province of Asia in the first century. That’s a historical fact.

Was that so hard to answer that question?

But where you go wrong is in claiming that Jesus was speaking partly to them and partly to a universal Church spread across all time—as if He was splitting His words into two categories. That’s a dangerous interpretive leap.

You really need to ask God for wisdom (James 1:5-7). Seriously. You are continually deluding yourself and missing what scripture is saying.

Let's start at the beginning of Revelation 2 and see if everything Jesus was saying there applies to the universal church or if some of what He said applied specifically to those in the church in first century Ephesus.

Revelation 2:1 “To the angel of the church of Ephesus write, "These things says He who holds the seven stars in His right hand, who walks in the midst of the seven golden lampstands: 2 “I know your works, your labor, your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars; 3 and you have persevered and have patience, and have labored for My name’s sake and have not become weary. 4 Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love. 5 Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent. 6 But this you have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. 7 “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes I will give to eat from the tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God.” ’

Are you going to try to tell me that Jesus was not talking about the people of the church of Ephesus in particular having persevered and had patience and labored for His name's sake? Are you going to try to tell me that Jesus was not talking about the people of the church of Ephesus in particular having "tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars"? Are you going to try to tell me that Jesus was not talking about the people in the church of Ephesus in particular having left their first love and that they needed to repent of that? Are you going to try to tell me that Jesus was not talking about the people in the church of Ephesus in particular as having hated the deeds of the Nicolaitans that He also hated? Those are all things that Jesus was saying in direct relation to the people in the first century church of Ephesus. To say otherwise is ridiculous. He was not saying that to the universal church. Of course, any churches or individuals who could relate to anything He said there at the time or since then can learn from what He said there as well. But, He was talking to that church in particular in those verses. Then in verse 7 He said something that applies to the universal church.

The reality is: those seven churches were literal, but they also functioned as a complete representation of the universal Church throughout the ages. That’s why Jesus ends each letter with:

“He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.” (Revelation 2–3)

Notice: not just “to Ephesus” or “to Sardis,” but to all the churches. The message to each was intended for the whole Church, then and now. Hello?!

What He said are things that all churches should heed and consider, but my point is that He referred to things that specifically applied to those churches, but can be learned from by any other churches or individuals who were in similar situations. Do you agree with that or not? Such as the church of Ephesus hating the deeds of the Nicolaitans. That's not something that specifically can be said of the whole church. That was something that specifically related to that church. Do you think that has anything to do with you now? The Nicolaitans aren't even around anymore.

I'm not saying that there aren't things that no one else in any other church can learn from or heed in those messages. I'm just saying that some of the things applied directly to the situation those churches were in. Such as this...

Revelation 2:8 “And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write, ‘These things says the First and the Last, who was dead, and came to life: 9 “I know your works, tribulation, and poverty (but you are rich); and I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. 10 Do not fear any of those things which you are about to suffer. Indeed, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will have tribulation ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life. 11 “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death.” ’

What Jesus said in verses 8 through 10 applied specifically to those in the church in first century Smyrna. He was speaking about their "works, tribulation and poverty in particular, not the whole church. He was talking about things they in particular were about to suffer, not the whole church. But, what He said would apply to any churches or anyone in the church in similar circumstances. And Him saying "Be faithful unto death, and I will give you a crown of life" applies to the whole church. And, obviously, what He said in verse 11 applies to "the churches" and not just that church.

You can’t have it both ways. You say you believe in the unity of the Church across time, but then you divide Christ’s message into “some for them, some for us,” as if Revelation 2–3 is a patchwork quilt of temporary and eternal truths.

Because you are so quick to judge, I don't think you are seeing my point here. There's nothing wrong with believing that Jesus had specific messages for those particular churches. But, of course, we all can learn from those messages if we find ourselves in similar circumstances. I never said otherwise. I'm just saying He alluded to situations that those particular churches were experiencing at that time. To say otherwise would be a case of denying the obvious, so I wouldn't put that past you.

That’s not how Scripture speaks. Jesus didn’t write footnotes into His letters saying, “This part is for the 1st century only.” You’re imposing that division—not the text.

You are misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that what He said in Revelation 2 and 3 only applied in the 1st century. How about actually making an effort to say what I'm actually saying instead of making judgments. Take some time to actually think instead of making assumptions all the time.

So yes, they were real churches—but they were also used by God to speak to the whole Church. Just like with the temple! Stop fragmenting the Body of Christ and trying to assign expiration dates to His Word. Truth doesn’t change with geography or time.

I am doing no such thing. That's your strawman doing that.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Nope. It is to point out that you're interpreting spiritual matters—specifically, prophecy—through a carnal or natural lens rather than a spiritual one.

Then don't apply something to me that applies to someone without the Holy Spirit, as "the natural man" does. If you would have called me a "babe in Christ" that would've at least made more sense and wouldn't come across that you were saying I'm not a Christian.

Paul contrasts the natural and spiritual mind, not just in terms of salvation, but in terms of discernment.

But, you are not even able to discern that "the natural man" is not saved. He doesn't have the Holy Spirit.

A believer can still think carnally or interpret Scripture naturally—just like the Corinthians themselves, whom Paul addressed as “carnal” (1 Cor. 3:1-3), not because they were unsaved, but because they weren’t walking in spiritual understanding.

Yes, but they were called "babes in Christ". They are Christians with the Spirit dwelling in them, but they were still thinking carnally instead of spiritually. They were immature and not walking in the Spirit. But, "the natural man" is said to be someone who does not have the Holy Spirit. It is said that he can't know the things of the Spirit of God. You are so lacking in spiritual discernment, that you can't even discern the difference between the reference to "the natural man" in 1 Corinthians 2:14 and the "babes in Christ' in 1 Cor 3:1-3. Both think carnally, but "the natural man" is not said to be in Christ. The natural man can't know the things of the Spirit of God because he does not have the Holy Spirit dwelling in him. That's not something one would say about a babe in Christ who can know the things of the Spirit of God and should know them, but is thinking carnally instead.

 

[Douggg]

But, who were the ones ultimately responsible for it? The Jews who rejected Jesus. Their city and temple were destroyed "because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation." (Luke 19:44). Read Luke 19:41-44 to see why their city was destroyed.

No, the Jews were revolting Roman control and occupation. There were a series of Jewish vs Romans wars.

The Jews rejection of Jesus was not a reason for the Romans to surround the city, and overcome the Jews who were rebelling, to destroy the city and sanctuary.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No, the Jews were revolting Roman control and occupation. There were a series of Jewish vs Romans wars.

The Jews rejection of Jesus was not a reason for the Romans to surround the city, and overcome the Jews who were rebelling, to destroy the city and sanctuary.

You clearly have no understanding of this passage...

Luke 19:41 Now as He drew near, He saw the city and wept over it, 42 saying, “If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. 43 For days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and close you in on every side, 44 and level you, and your children within you, to the ground; and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not know the time of your visitation.”

Jesus prophesied that Jerusalem would be destroyed because the Jews "did not know the time of your visitation". They, for the most part, did not recognize and accept Jesus as their Messiah, so that is the reason that their city and temple were destroyed.

You also must not have any understanding of this passage...

Matthew 22:1 And Jesus answered and spoke to them again by parables and said: 2 “The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, 3 and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come. 4 Again, he sent out other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding.” ’ 5 But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. 6 And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them. 7 But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.

The servants in the parable are those who preached the gospel in Israel starting with the disciples of Jesus. The king in this parable is God, the armies were the Roman armies, "those murderers" were those like the Pharisees and scribes who had people like Stephen killed, and the city that was burned up was Jerusalem.