The "watch rapture view"

[Spiritual Israelite]

Thought so! @Spiritual Israelite has no answer to this.

LOL. What is your point here? You think you're proving something because scripture doesn't talk about what happened to those churches after Revelation was written? What a joke! Are you for real? You said you believe they were seven actual churches, so what is the point you're trying to make here?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I don't consider you wicked (verse 10). But verse 10 says the wise shall understand.

You have no understanding of Bible prophecy whatsoever. You prove that over and over again. You make up new definitions for words to make scripture say what you want it to say, such as when you define the word generation as the average human life span to support your false understanding of Matthew 24:34.

I don't need someone like you who dishonestly twists scripture repeatedly to fit his doctrine to tell me anything about Daniel 12. I don't need someone like you who, despite Daniel 9:26 explicitly telling us that the Messiah would be cut off AFTER the 69th week, denies that He was cut off during the 70th week. You have no wisdom at all, so it's not possible for you to understand Daniel 12 or any other Bible prophecy because of your complete reliance on your own fallible human wisdom.

My doctrine and understanding of Bible prophecy comes primarily from clear, straightforward scriptures rather than from the most difficult to interpret scriptures in the Bible like yours.

Read the first 2 posts in this thread so you can learn from clear, straightforward scriptures instead of relying on your imaginary wisdom to understand more difficult scriptures like this one. Unlike Amillennialism, Premillennialism is based on assumptions and speculation rather than on any clear, straightforward scriptures

I have a timeline chart of the 1290 days and 1335th day, show below of the 1290 days and 1335th day. And what takes place in between..

Your timeline charts are ALWAYS erroneous, so they mean nothing to me. You can't even discern that the rapture is post-trib (Matt 24:29-31, Mark 13:24-27) as Jesus made very clear, so why should I trust your understanding about the timing of anything?

 

[covenantee]

LOL. Matthew 22:1-7 and Luke 19:41-44 both clearly show that the unbelieving Jews would be punished for their rejection of Christ. Jesus said "They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.” (Luke 19:44). Clearly, what happened in 70 AD was God's punishment of the Jews for rejecting Christ. This is very obvious, but you still deny it. I would never admit that any of your imaginary opinions are true. God used the Romans to take out His wrath against the Jews. It's similar to Him using the ten horns of the beast to destroy the whore (Revelation 17:16-17). God can take out His wrath any way He wants to.

True. And the Roman commander Titus himself recognized it:
"We have certainly had God for our assistant in this war, and it was no other than God who ejected the Jews out of these fortifications; for what could the hands of men or any machines do towards overthrowing these towers?"

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Subject: The end of the age and the return of Christ:

Luke 17:22-26 & 31, 36-37 - on the way to Jerusalem -

"And He said to the disciples, The days will come when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and you shall not see it. And they shall say to you, Lo, here! or, behold, there! Do not go away, nor follow. For as the lightning which lights up, flashing from the one part under heaven, and shines to the other part under heaven, so also shall the Son of man be in His day. But first He must suffer many things and be rejected of this generation.

And as it was in the days of Noah, so it also shall be in the days of the Son of man. Even so it shall be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. In that day he who shall be on the housetop, and his goods in the house, let him not come down to take them away. And likewise, he who is in the field, let him not return to the things behind. Two shall be in the field, one will be taken, and the other left. And they answered and said to Him, Where, Lord? And He said to them, Wherever the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together."

Matthew 24 - on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem -

Matthew 24:14-20 & 26-28:
"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be proclaimed in all the world as a witness to all nations. And then the end shall come. Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoever reads, let him understand). Then let those in Judea flee into the mountains. Let him on the housetop not come down to take anything out of his house; nor let him in the field turn 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:

Therefore if they shall say to you, Behold, He is in the desert! Do not go out. Behold, He is in the secret rooms! Do not believe it. For as the lightning comes out of the east and shines even to the west, so also will be the coming of the Son of man. For wherever the carcass is, there the eagles will be gathered."

Different subject: The desolation of Jerusalem:

Luke 21
20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judæa 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. 22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. 24 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.

Jesus had already said He is the Temple of God - and He was hours away from going through what He went through before dying in agony and the moment He died, the veil in that Jerusalem temple which you are so obsessed with in your interpretation of the Olivet Discourse, was torn in two.

Neither city nor the temple in it were holy to God and an abomination of desolation placed in a holy place requires that place to be holy.

You insist that the temple which Jesus had already pronounced desolation upon, He needed to answer His disciples' question about just because they asked Him. But their question was a burden to Him. They had already pointed out it's magnificent structure after they had heard Him telling the Pharisees it was left to them desolate and He had already once had to repeat Himself.

It was just hours before His suffering when through His death and resurrection He was bringing in a new creation in Himself. The Old Covenant and the temple that represented it that you are so obsessed with died with Him.

What is important to you (or me, or to the apostles, or anyone else) does not have to be important to Him.

Tell me, one day when we all stand before the judgment seat of Christ, will you demand of Him why He did not answer them, because you assert and insist that the question of when that old temple would be destroyed (and what the sign would be that it was about to occur) was still SO important to Jesus that "there is no reason why Jesus would not have replied" (according to you)?

Jesus was warning His disciples to flee when they see armies gather around Jerusalem as well as when we see the AoD appear in the holy place - He was not warning anyone else - and just because He used the examples of pregnant women and nursing mothers as an illustration of the intensity of what those in the city would suffer when armies gather around Jerusalem in AD70, as well as at the end of the age, does not mean that He considered Jerusalem and its temple holy. He already considered the city and its temple profane when He spoke.



Bah blah blah. Your words are so devoid of substance. You have provided no viable answers regarding the only meaning of the word therefore in Mat 24:15 nor the fact that it's one of the conjunctive words used in the passage from verse 9 to 31, nor the fact that Mark reads as Matthew does,

nor the fact that on the Mount of Olives Jesus spoke to His disciples only about the persecution and tribulation that they - the living stones of the New Testament Temple in Christ - were going to endure - both leading up to AD70 and the destruction of Jerusalem - and beyond that until the end of the age and time of His return.

IMO your partial-Preterism that shows up in the way you interpret the Olivet Discourse and the AoD in the holy place only betrays a place where your understanding of (or possibly even faith in) the one and only gospel of salvation in Christ is lacking - because YOU consider the temple that He was already done with, to be important enough for Him to have spoken to His disciples about its coming destruction a third time on the same day.

He did not. It's quite obvious that you will not end your obsession with maintaining and ascribing enough importance to something Jesus was already done with, till 70 AD when YOU say the abomination of desolation appeared "in the holy place".

So many words to say nothing while denying the obvious, which is that Jesus DID answer their question about when the temple buildings would be destroyed. I've never seen a more blatant twisting of scripture than this while denying something so obvious just to make the text say what you want it to say. As if Jesus would tell them that the temple buildings would be destroyed while at the same time being unwilling to give any details at all about it? LOL! What a joke. I can't take you seriously.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

True. And the Roman commander Titus himself recognized it:
"We have certainly had God for our assistant in this war, and it was no other than God who ejected the Jews out of these fortifications; for what could the hands of men or any machines do towards overthrowing these towers?"

Matthew 22:1-7 and Luke 19:41-44 make it abundantly clear that the destruction of Jerusalem was God's wrath against the unbelieving Jews. Douggg just has a habit of denying the obvious because he only goes by whatever he wants scripture to say.

 

[TribulationSigns]

LOL. What is your point here? You think you're proving something because scripture doesn't talk about what happened to those churches after Revelation was written? What a joke! Are you for real? You said you believe they were seven actual churches, so what is the point you're trying to make here?

Listen. What happened to these original seven churches in scripture after God warned against some of them?

 

[TribulationSigns]

LOL. Matthew 22:1-7 and Luke 19:41-44 both clearly show that the unbelieving Jews would be punished for their rejection of Christ. Jesus said "They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.” (Luke 19:44). Clearly, what happened in 70 AD was God's punishment of the Jews for rejecting Christ. This is very obvious, but you still deny it. I would never admit that any of your imaginary opinions are true. God used the Romans to take out His wrath against the Jews. It's similar to Him using the ten horns of the beast to destroy the whore (Revelation 17:16-17). God can take out His wrath any way He wants to.

Wrongo, as usual.

You’re missing the point by focusing only on physical events like the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. Yes, unbelieving Jews were judged for rejecting Christ, but the deeper and more immediate judgment was spiritual—not merely a building falling decades later. Jesus wasn’t just talking about stone walls; He was speaking of a spiritual house and kingdom.

First, Jesus said in Matthew 21:42-44:

“The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner… Therefore I say unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.”

Here, “the builders” were the Jewish leaders and unbeliving people of Israel. “The stone” is Christ. And the “nation” He refers to is the New Testament Church—as holy nation made up of both Jew and Gentile believers (1 Peter 2:9-10). The judgment was that the kingdom was spiritually taken away from unbelieving Israel and given to those in Christ who bear fruit.

Second, in 1 Peter 2:4-6, Peter says to Christians:

“Ye also, as lively [living] stones, are built up a spiritual house… Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.”

This proves that God’s true Temple was never about physical stones in Jerusalem. The true house of God is made up of PEOPLE —as living stones in Christ. That includes believers from the Old Testament (Hebrews 11:39-40), and now, the New Testament Church.

Third, in John 2:19-21, Jesus Himself clarified the deeper meaning:

“Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” But he was speaking of the temple of his body.

He was never ultimately focused on Herod’s temple. That structure was just a shadow (Hebrews 8:5). The real temple is Christ’s body—and by extension, HIS PEOPLE (see 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, Ephesians 2:19-22). When Israel rejected Him, they were cast out of the spiritual house, and God raised up a new one, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ as the cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20).

So no, Luke 19:44 is not about some angry divine payback with bricks and fire using with Roman soliders. The judgment was already happening spiritually as Jesus wept over their blindness to God’s visitation. The kingdom had shifted at the cross. The builders had rejected the true Stone, and God had already begun building His true house without them. So no physical destruction is needed because this is not what God prophesied.

To keep clinging to physical temples and national identity is to miss the very gospel Christ came to fulfill.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Listen. What happened to these original seven churches in scripture after God warned against some of them?

In scripture? It doesn't tell us that specifically in scripture. There is information given online about what happened to those churchest, so you can look that up for yourself. They obviously don't still exist today.

What is your point here? Stop playing games and get to the point.

 

[TribulationSigns]

True. And the Roman commander Titus himself recognized it:
"We have certainly had God for our assistant in this war, and it was no other than God who ejected the Jews out of these fortifications; for what could the hands of men or any machines do towards overthrowing these towers?"

What a joke. Looking for proof or interpreation from Josephus's "Jewish War"?

Titus was NOT Christian. Romans often attributed military victories to the favor of their respective deities. This was a widespread belief, not exclusive to Christianity. He believed in divine assistance; there's no explicit mention of Jesus or Christian doctrines in the quote. He could have been referring to the Roman God. Even if you believe Jesus Christ used Titus to fulfill his prophecy in 70AD is foolish and not supported by Scripture.

Another false Preterism fantasy. So-called Partial Preterism infused Amillennialists included!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Wrongo, as usual.

You’re missing the point by focusing only on physical events like the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. Yes, unbelieving Jews were judged for rejecting Christ, but the deeper and more immediate judgment was spiritual—not merely a building falling decades later. Jesus wasn’t just talking about stone walls; He was speaking of a spiritual house and kingdom.

First, Jesus said in Matthew 21:42-44:

“The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner… Therefore I say unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.”

Here, “the builders” were the Jewish leaders and unbeliving people of Israel. “The stone” is Christ. And the “nation” He refers to is the New Testament Church—as holy nation made up of both Jew and Gentile believers (1 Peter 2:9-10). The judgment was that the kingdom was spiritually taken away from unbelieving Israel and given to those in Christ who bear fruit.

Second, in 1 Peter 2:4-6, Peter says to Christians:

“Ye also, as lively [living] stones, are built up a spiritual house… Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.”

This proves that God’s true Temple was never about physical stones in Jerusalem. The true house of God is made up of PEOPLE —as living stones in Christ. That includes believers from the Old Testament (Hebrews 11:39-40), and now, the New Testament Church.

Third, in John 2:19-21, Jesus Himself clarified the deeper meaning:

“Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” But he was speaking of the temple of his body.

He was never ultimately focused on Herod’s temple. That structure was just a shadow (Hebrews 8:5). The real temple is Christ’s body—and by extension, HIS PEOPLE (see 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, Ephesians 2:19-22). When Israel rejected Him, they were cast out of the spiritual house, and God raised up a new one, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ as the cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20).

So no, Luke 19:44 is not about some angry divine payback with bricks and fire using with Roman soliders. The judgment was already happening spiritually as Jesus wept over their blindness to God’s visitation. The kingdom had shifted at the cross. The builders had rejected the true Stone, and God had already begun building His true house without them. So no physical destruction is needed because this is not what God prophesied.

To keep clinging to physical temples and national identity is to miss the very gospel Christ came to fulfill.

You are clueless. You act as if someone can only either believe that God's wrath came against Jerusalem in 70 AD when the physical temple buildings were destroyed or they can believe that Christ's body was the temple and the church collectively is the temple of God, but not both. What a joke. You are not someone who can be taken seriously. Your hyper-spiritualization of scripture shows a tremendous lack of being able to spiritually discern between what is literal and figurative and what is physical and what is spiritual. I can't help but wonder if you even believe that anything is physical.

 

[TribulationSigns]

In scripture? It doesn't tell us that specifically in scripture.

Thought so. I rest my case.

 

[covenantee]

What a joke. Looking for proof or interpreation from Josephus's "Jewish War"?

Titus was NOT Christian. Romans often attributed military victories to the favor of their respective deities. This was a widespread belief, not exclusive to Christianity. He believed in divine assistance; there's no explicit mention of Jesus or Christian doctrines in the quote. He could have been referring to the Roman God. Even if you believe Jesus Christ used Titus to fulfill his prophecy in 70AD is foolish and not supported by Scripture.

Another false Preterism fantasy. So-called Partial Preterism infused Amillennialists included!

Josephus is a recognized historian.

You're not.

Titus was not a gnostic.

You are.

Whom to believe?

Need a hint?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

What a joke. Looking for proof or interpreation from Josephus's "Jewish War"?

LOL. As if no historical documents besides the Bible contain any truth in them?

Titus was NOT Christian. Romans often attributed military victories to the favor of their respective deities. This was a widespread belief, not exclusive to Christianity. He believed in divine assistance; there's no explicit mention of Jesus or Christian doctrines in the quote. He could have been referring to the Roman God. Even if you believe Jesus Christ used Titus to fulfill his prophecy in 70AD is foolish and not supported by Scripture.

How do you interpret 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. 8 Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. 9 Therefore go into the highways, and as many as you find, invite to the wedding.’

I'd particularly like to know what you think Matthew 22:7 is about.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Thought so. I rest my case.

What is your case? Stop playing games and tell me what your point is here? You acknowledge that they were actual churches, so something obviously caused them to cease to exist. There's some info online about them you can look up related to what happened to them. What is the point? Grow up and explain what your point is here.

 

[TribulationSigns]

You are clueless. You act as if someone can only either believe that God's wrath came against Jerusalem in 70 AD when the physical temple buildings were destroyed or they can believe that Christ's body was the temple and the church collectively is the temple of God, but not both. What a joke. You are not someone who can be taken seriously. Your hyper-spiritualization of scripture shows a tremendous lack of being able to spiritually discern between what is literal and figurative and what is physical and what is spiritual. I can't help but wonder if you even believe that anything is physical.

Ah, yes… the old “you must not believe in anything physical” accusation—classic fallback when someone can't answer spiritual truth with Scripture.


I never denied that the physical temple was destroyed in 70 AD. Of course it was. No one is disputing that. What you fail to grasp is that Jesus was never primarily concerned with the physical temple—He consistently pointed to something greater.


It’s not about either/or. It’s about priority and fulfillment. Christ said in Matthew 12:6, “One greater than the temple is here.” He didn’t weep over stones and gold; He wept over people rejecting their Messiah (Luke 19:41-44). If you think the physical destruction in 70 AD was the main judgment, then you missed the real catastrophe: the spiritual kingdom was taken away (Matthew 21:43) and given to a people of faith—Jews and Gentiles alike—who became the new spiritual house (1 Peter 2:5).


You accuse me of “hyper-spiritualizing,” but I’m simply letting the New Testament interpret the Old—as we’re commanded to do. Paul literally says in 1 Corinthians 3:16:

“Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?”

Should I assume Paul also didn’t believe in anything physical? LOL, come on!

The irony is, you seem to be stuck hyper-literalizing everything, like the Pharisees who couldn’t see past the temple walls either. And just like them, you're so focused on rocks and ruins that you miss the living Stone—Christ Himself—and the spiritual house He's building with His people, the STONES! (Ephesians 2:19-22).

So yes, the temple was destroyed. But the real judgment had already come—when they rejected the Cornerstone and the kingdom was taken from them.

But hey, if all you see is bricks falling, maybe you’re looking in the wrong direction.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Ah, yes… the old “you must not believe in anything physical” accusation—classic fallback when someone can't answer spiritual truth with Scripture.

Hey, buddy, don't blame me for how you come across which is that you try to spiritualize every single verse of scripture that you come across.

I never denied that the physical temple was destroyed in 70 AD. Of course it was. No one is disputing that.

So, why would you not think that event, which had a very significant impact in Jerusalem and on the Jews as a people group, would not be referenced at all in scripture anywhere? That makes no sense.

What you fail to grasp is that Jesus was never primarily concerned with the physical temple—He consistently pointed to something greater.

He talked about the Jews being punished for their rebellion. Destroying their precious physical temple was part of that. Of course, there was something greater and I don't deny any of that, but that doesn't mean we can just ignore the punishment and wrath of God that came upon the unbelieving Jews in 70 AD. That event should show that God does not mess around. If His people rebel against Him, He will not just turn a blind eye. He will punish anyone who rebels against Him and what happened in 70 AD is a stark reminder of that. I'm sure before it actually happened that the Jews never imagined that God would ever judge them like that, but He did.

It’s not about either/or. It’s about priority and fulfillment. Christ said in Matthew 12:6, “One greater than the temple is here.” He didn’t weep over stones and gold; He wept over people rejecting their Messiah (Luke 19:41-44).

Of course! Do you actually think I thought otherwise? You're spending a lot of time here arguing with your imaginary strawman. Of course He was weeping over the people and not over stones. Hello? Duh. No kidding.

If you think the physical destruction in 70 AD was the main judgment, then you missed the real catastrophe: the spiritual kingdom was taken away (Matthew 21:43) and given to a people of faith—Jews and Gentiles alike—who became the new spiritual house (1 Peter 2:5).

I never said that was the main judgment! Stop making assumptions about what I believe! What is the name of your strawman?

You accuse me of “hyper-spiritualizing,”

Yes, and I won't stop doing that.

but I’m simply letting the New Testament interpret the Old—as we’re commanded to do. Paul literally says in 1 Corinthians 3:16:

Yes, and sometimes it interprets things in a literal, physical way and sometimes in a spiritual way. You seem to interpret almost everything in a spiritual or figurative way, which is ridiculous.

Should I assume Paul also didn’t believe in anything physical? LOL, come on!

The irony is, you seem to be stuck hyper-literalizing everything,

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not at all. Get back to me if you ever want to get serious. I'm done with this nonsense.

 

[amigo de christo]

In scripture? It doesn't tell us that specifically in scripture. There is information given online about what happened to those churchest, so you can look that up for yourself. They obviously don't still exist today.

What is your point here? Stop playing games and get to the point.

actually in part they do still exist today .
What began with the seed falling into the earth
from whence it took root and shot upwards , is still here today .
FROM CHRIST to the apostels
and everyone who would believe through them and then through those they spoke too
and then through those and onwards . ITS the same planting of THE GLORIOUS and WONDEROUS LORD KING JESUS .
And as you probably already well know
WHAT was written to the seven churches
OH IT STILL APPLIES TO US TODAY . SOON in a day and an hour
known to no man
The master of the HOUSE shall rise up and close the door . ALL OUTSIDE shall wail .

 

[TribulationSigns]

How do you interpret 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. 8 Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. 9 Therefore go into the highways, and as many as you find, invite to the wedding.’

I'd particularly like to know what you think Matthew 22:7 is about.

Sure! If you understand the context first...

Mat 22:1-8
(1) And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said,
(2) The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
(3) And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.
(4) Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.
(5) But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:
(6) And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.
(7) But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
(8) Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.

Are we going to go by what "seems" right in our own eyes by reading Josephus like you do, or by the authoritative word of God explaining it by comparing scripture with Scripture?

Let's see... First, this PARABLE actually supports the understanding of this being the Old Testament congregation that was destroyed at the cross and being rebuilt in the New Testament congregation, rather than a physical city that was destroyed over 30 years after the cross. Understand this, you need to look at what the Kingdom of heaven is, likened unto. In other words, the congregation on earth!

Moreover, if the wedding, the bidding to it, the slain oxen, the farm, the merchandise, the fatlings, and the guests on the highways are not literal things at a very literal wedding, what would make anyone think the armies of the king would magically, and out of context, be an absolute literal/physical army of Romans in the midst of all this? Think about it! That makes no sense! It's only accepted because Christians follow the leaders rather than sound study practices or hermeneutics. That is why we have a thousand different versions of every doctrine known to the church. Not because truth is so unattainable, but because of the stubborn will of man and cannot be spiritually discerned! YOU!

Third, after the city was destroyed, THEN God sent out His servants to secure wedding guests. Are we to then suppose that the church waited over 30 years until 70 A.D. when a physical destruction of Jerusalem took place before God (this King) sent His servants out to find guests? LOL!!!!!! The whole idea is absurd and inconsistent because when something is not true it generally is always inconsistent. For example, it won't fit because there is no real harmony as with God inspired truth. The biblical fact is, God sent his servants out to secure guests to the wedding when He poured out His holy Spirit at Pentecost, not over 30 years after Pentecost, after a destruction in 70 A.D. DUH!!!!

Fourth, there is not one jot or tittle in God's inerrant word about all stones falling being an exaggeration or a physical army knocking down physical bricks in 70 A.D., because it's speculation. That's not even taking into account that the physical city Jerusalem "in 70 A.D." was no longer the Lord's Holy City that it would even qualify. It hadn't been God's Holy City since the time of the cross. There was a "New Jerusalem," and it certainly was not represented by the physical Jerusalem in 70 A.D., The only holy city Jerusalem that qualifies for being destroyed before the rebuilding was the congregation of God that was destroyed when Christ was crucified. So the use of these passages of Matthew 22 in an attempt to justify a carnal world view of a city's destruction by the people of a Prince in 70 A.D., is without rock-solid foundation. Foundation upon the WORD of God rather than history books.

The armies that destroyed the holy city were the people themselves, the people of the prince, who Scripture says compassed Christ about, and who pierced his hands and feet. They stumbled over the stone and destroyed both city and sanctuary. They are those who came against Jerusalem by being against Christ. They were the children of their father, the messengers who were ruled by their King Satan. The kingdom of God at that time suffered violence and was taken by force, until Satan was cast out of the kingdom, and his messengers with him, and their kingdom given to another (NT Church). Christ spoiled the Kingdom by conquest and set its captives free. It's not a physical Kingdom in physical heaven with an army of supernatural angels around a pregnant women floating in space with physical stars on her head. It's the representation of the Holy city, the kingdom of heaven represented on earth, and symbolized with cryptic imagery you see in books like Revelation. The city was destroyed by an army alright, but not a Roman one in 70 A.D., but by Satan's messengers, the people of the Prince who had turned against Him and had taken it by force. This is the army the Lord used to destroy itself. This is the battle where Israel fell, and it was realized at the cross, not after 70 A.D.

Revelation 12:7-10

• "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
• And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
• And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
• And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night."

Christ defeated the accuser Satan and his messengers and the Lord's messengers defeated them by His blood, not the swords, staves and armies of 70 A.D.!! When we find what armies these verses of Revelation 12 represent, what battle of messengers this was, what accuser was cast down and how the Lord's servants, His army, overcame Satan's army by the blood of Christ, then maybe it will start to dawn upon us that it be revealed just how the enemies encamped against the Holy city and in the end were defeated by Christ and cast out. The result was that the New Testament Church was established. Not in 70 AD, but by and through the army who triumphts through the blood of Christ.

Try to refute this with Scripture yourself. Not with your favorite comic book called Josephus.

 

[TribulationSigns]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not at all. Get back to me if you ever want to get serious. I'm done with this nonsense.

Wow—LOL with 30 exclamation points. That’s the kind of deep theological rebuttal I’ve come to expect when someone runs out of Scripture and substance.

If you’re “done with this nonsense,” that’s fine. Not everyone can handle real Bible discussion when it goes beyond surface-level Sunday school. Just be honest—if the truth gets too hot, it’s okay to get out of the kitchen. But don’t pretend slamming the door behind you counts as a victory.

When you're ready to trade mockery for Scripture and emotional outbursts for discernment, feel free to come back. Until then, I’ll keep discussing truth with people who can tell the difference between sarcasm and sound doctrine.

 

[Davidpt]

Wrongo, as usual.

You’re missing the point by focusing only on physical events like the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. Yes, unbelieving Jews were judged for rejecting Christ, but the deeper and more immediate judgment was spiritual—not merely a building falling decades later. Jesus wasn’t just talking about stone walls; He was speaking of a spiritual house and kingdom.

First, Jesus said in Matthew 21:42-44:

“The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner… Therefore I say unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.”

Here, “the builders” were the Jewish leaders and unbeliving people of Israel. “The stone” is Christ. And the “nation” He refers to is the New Testament Church—as holy nation made up of both Jew and Gentile believers (1 Peter 2:9-10). The judgment was that the kingdom was spiritually taken away from unbelieving Israel and given to those in Christ who bear fruit.

Second, in 1 Peter 2:4-6, Peter says to Christians:

“Ye also, as lively [living] stones, are built up a spiritual house… Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.”

This proves that God’s true Temple was never about physical stones in Jerusalem. The true house of God is made up of PEOPLE —as living stones in Christ. That includes believers from the Old Testament (Hebrews 11:39-40), and now, the New Testament Church.

Third, in John 2:19-21, Jesus Himself clarified the deeper meaning:

“Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” But he was speaking of the temple of his body.

He was never ultimately focused on Herod’s temple. That structure was just a shadow (Hebrews 8:5). The real temple is Christ’s body—and by extension, HIS PEOPLE (see 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, Ephesians 2:19-22). When Israel rejected Him, they were cast out of the spiritual house, and God raised up a new one, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ as the cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20).

So no, Luke 19:44 is not about some angry divine payback with bricks and fire using with Roman soliders. The judgment was already happening spiritually as Jesus wept over their blindness to God’s visitation. The kingdom had shifted at the cross. The builders had rejected the true Stone, and God had already begun building His true house without them. So no physical destruction is needed because this is not what God prophesied.

To keep clinging to physical temples and national identity is to miss the very gospel Christ came to fulfill.

While I somewhat agree with you about some of this, the following undeniably proves that Luke 21:20-23 is pertaining to the first century leading up to 70 AD---and shall be led away captive into all nations(Luke 21:24).

And here is why since it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. But a false teacher is going to try and conceal this not reveal this. Unless Christains at the time did what is recorded in Luke 21:21, how was the gospel supposed to eventually spread globally throughout all nations if they would have stayed and went down with the city and temple like the unbelieving Jews still occupying it did? While your view of Matthew 24:15-21 makes sense, your view of Luke 21:20-21 in light of Luke 21:24, and in light of what history records, makes zero sense. As if it makes sense that Christians fleeing to the mountains does not equal how the gospel eventually began spreading throughout the world. You continue to make a fool of yourself here if you continue insisting Luke 21:20-23 is not meaning the first century leading up to 70 AD.

As to Luke 21:20-23 vs Matthew 24:15-21, I think I may have stumbled on to a solution to it. But that post is in another thread, the thread pertaining to --When did the 2nd temple literally initially cease being the holy place?--my latest post in that thread.