The "watch rapture view"

[Spiritual Israelite]

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! Not a physical city and temple!

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 a 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.

LOL. You have no discernment whatsoever. It's a minor miracle that you are an Amil. I truly don't know how that happened when you get so many things wrong. That parable is about the preaching of the gospel that started in Jerusalem and went throughout Israel. Matthew 22:7 is about what God did to the unbelieving Jews who mistreated those who preached to them and killed some of them, like Stephen and others. He punished them by destroying their city.

The parable talks about the gospel offer of salvation then going out into the highways after it was rejected in Israel, representing the Gentile nations. In the end, when Jesus returns, everyone will be judged with only those having the proper garments on being part of the wedding between the bridegroom (Christ) and His bride (the church). Your lack of being able to discern this parable of Jesus says it all about you and your level of spiritual discernment.

 

[TribulationSigns]

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.

No—you’re the one missing it and the one making a fool of. Luke 21 is not some localized evacuation plan for Jews living in first-century Jerusalem. The Olivet Discourse is not about national Israel—it's addressed to Christ’s New Testament congregation, the Church. That’s who His disciples represented, and that’s who He was preparing.


What many people consistently fail to grasp is that the entire discourse is prophetic and spiritual in nature. You throw around phrases like “abomination of desolation” and “flee to the mountains,” but have no clue what they actually mean in a spiritual context.


Do you even know what the abomination of desolation is? What does the holy place refers to on this side of the Cross? Or what mountains Jesus was talking about that we need to flee to? Because so far, nobody—including @Spiritual Israelite —has been able to answer this one. I'm still waiting.

Christ was not giving survival tips for a city siege—He was warning His people, His Church, about a future spiritual deception and apostasy, urging them to flee to the spiritual mountains of truth and refuge in Him (cf. Hebrews 12:22).

So again, I’m still waiting: what mountains did the Lord command His people to flee to? Until someone can answer that, maybe sit this one out.

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.

Not surprised if you do not understand this.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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.

I had to make it clear how hilarious your comment was. Not even 20 exclamation points would have made that clear enough. Your posts are a total joke. You are not able to discern the difference between what is literal and what is figurative and what is physical and what is spiritual. You're more like a typical Premil than a typical Amil.

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.

LOL. Everyone here can see how you fail to understand even simple scripture. You instead make it so convoluted that only you can even make any sense out of anything you're saying. You act as if it can't both be true that God punished the Jews in 70 AD by destroying their city AND also gave the kingdom to those who have faith in Christ, including Gentile believers.

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.

I'm looking for serious discussion instead of the ridiculous nonsense you've been posting, which is not the truth. Are you interested in that or not? Let me know.

 

[TribulationSigns]

LOL.

“LOL”? That’s all you’ve got after completely dodging my actual point?

You have no discernment whatsoever. It's a minor miracle that you are an Amil. I truly don't know how that happened when you get so many things wrong. That parable is about the preaching of the gospel that started in Jerusalem and went throughout Israel. Matthew 22:7 is about what God did to the unbelieving Jews who mistreated those who preached to them and killed some of them, like Stephen and others. He punished them by destroying their city.

The parable talks about the gospel offer of salvation then going out into the highways after it was rejected in Israel, representing the Gentile nations. In the end, when Jesus returns, everyone will be judged with only those having the proper garments on being part of the wedding between the bridegroom (Christ) and His bride (the church). Your lack of being able to discern this parable of Jesus says it all about you and your level of spiritual discernment.

You’re so eager to sound smug that you missed the entire focus of my post. I never denied the general gospel progression—from Israel to the Gentiles. We all know Matthew 22 illustrates the gospel being rejected by the original invitees and extended to those in the highways. That's not even the issue.

The issue is Matthew 22:7—and who exactly the army is, and how the city was destroyed, which you asked me to explain! You skipped right over that because you have no solid explanation or are unable to refute mine. Just parroting the phrase, “God punished them by destroying their city” doesn’t prove anything. Who was the army? When did God ever use His own "army" to destroy Jerusalem after the gospel invitation was rejected? You still haven't answered that—because your interpretation doesn’t hold up under biblical scrutiny.

You talk about “spiritual discernment,” yet your interpretation ignores the spiritual layers of the parable and treats God's judgment like it's just some Roman campaign. There’s no biblical basis for claiming God owned Rome as His instrument in that passage. And you still haven’t refuted that.

So before you accuse anyone of lacking discernment, try actually addressing the argument presented. Because right now, all you’ve done is repeat a Sunday school summary and slap on some sarcasm—as if that proves you’ve rightly divided anything.

I’ll ask you again with your own question: Who were the armies? Who burned the city—and how does that line up with what Jesus actually said in Matthew 22:7, not just what you assume He meant? Until you can answer that, your post says more about your level of discernment than mine.

 

[TribulationSigns]

You act as if it can't both be true that God punished the Jews in 70 AD by destroying their city AND also gave the kingdom to those who have faith in Christ, including Gentile believers.

You’re clearly not thinking this through. So let’s walk through it carefully—and I expect real answers this time, not deflection or mockery.


1.) When did the Jews (Old Testament congregation) lose their kingdom representation? Jesus said plainly in Matthew 21:42–43 that the kingdom of God would be taken from them and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits of it. So when exactly did that happen?


2.) When did the Gentile believers (New Testament congregation) receive the kingdom that was taken from the Jews? Matthew 21:43 implies a handoff. So, when was that fulfilled?


3.) In order to receive the kingdom, it has to fall first before being rebuilt—a principle affirmed in Acts 15:16 and Amos 9:11. So again, when did that fall and restoration happen?


4.) The temple fell, and in three days it was raised up again. Jesus said this in John 2:19. So when did that happen?


5.) When did the gospel of salvation begin to be preached? According to Revelation 12:9–10, it was after Satan was cast down at the Cross—meaning the real gospel era began after the resurrection, not after some military siege.


So here's the clear timeline:

• The kingdom was taken from unbelieving Israel (aka Old Testament congregation) at the Cross.
• It was given to the Church—the New Testament congregation—on the third day, and the Church received power at Pentecost.
• The gospel already went out to the nations long before 70 AD.

Therefore, I’ll ask again—and please, answer directly:

When did the Jews (Old Testament congregation) lose their kingdom representation—was it at the Cross, or in 70 AD?
Was it when they rejected the Cornerstone and crucified Him, or 40 years later when some Roman soldiers knocked down a building?

Because if you still say 70 AD, then you’ve ignored the very words of Christ and the actual fulfillment of prophecy. So let’s see if you can finally provide a biblically sound answer—or just more empty noise out of your mouth.

I'm looking for serious discussion instead of the ridiculous nonsense you've been posting, which is not the truth. Are you interested in that or not? Let me know.

If you’re actually looking for serious discussion, then start by addressing the points and Scriptures I’ve already laid out—instead of brushing them off as “nonsense” just because they challenge your assumptions.

I’ve been asking direct, biblical questions that you still haven’t answered. That’s not ridicule—that’s accountability. So if you're ready to engage with Scripture instead of emotional posturing, then by all means, let’s have a serious conversation.

Your move.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

The Antichrist does reign for 3.5 years. But the trumpets and bowls of God's wrath are only one year in length. During that one year is the marriage of the bridegroom, Jesus, with the bride, the raptured believers who are in heaven.

Isaiah 34
8 For it is the day of the Lord's vengeance, and the year of recompences for the controversy of Zion.

You wrongly connected Is. 34 with the 70th week of Daniel.

YOu also forget that the Battle of Armageddon takes place 3 1/2 years after the antichrist rises from the dsead and begins his global rule. Reev. 16 shows the last angel pours vial to gather the world armies for Armageddon.

 

[TribulationSigns]

You're more like a typical Premil than a typical Amil.

Where exactly did I ever teach that the thousand years come after a literal seven-year tribulation? Or that there’s a pre-tribulation rapture? Or that there's only one Antichrist? Or that part of the Olivet Discourse refers to the physical destruction of Jerusalem? Or that the physical temple will be rebuilt in modern Jerusalem under a peace treaty brokered by someone with a Nobel Peace Prize?

Please—show me the post where I taught any of that. You can’t, because I didn’t. Which means your accusation is completely baseless—a classic example of bearing false witness.

If you're going to accuse someone of “typical premill nonsense,” at least have the integrity to check their actual position first. I'm a true Amillennialist, unlike you with the stain of 70AD theory...LIKE a premill! And if you knew what that actually means, you'd realize how far off your claim really is.

Next time, try engaging with what I actually said instead of arguing with a strawman.

LOL. Everyone here can see how you fail to understand even simple scripture.

Not realize that you wanted to speak for everyone here. Not what I have heard from some people here.

You instead make it so convoluted that only you can even make any sense out of anything you're saying. You act as if it can't both be true that God punished the Jews in 70 AD by destroying their city AND also gave the kingdom to those who have faith in Christ, including Gentile believers.

Because it isn't! God said nothing of the sort about 70AD. That's your downfall.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

“LOL”? That’s all you’ve got after completely dodging my actual point?

I address more of your points than any person ever should bother spending time doing, so stop whining.

You’re so eager to sound smug that you missed the entire focus of my post.

Don't blame me for your terrible communication skills. I'm just going by what you say. Learn to be more clear. You never did clear up what your point was regarding what happened to the seven churches in Revelation. Is being clear just not something you're interested in doing?

I never denied the general gospel progression—from Israel to the Gentiles. We all know Matthew 22 illustrates the gospel being rejected by the original invitees and extended to those in the highways. That's not even the issue.

Hello? Then it should be clear that the ones who initially rejected the gospel were the Jews and it was their city, Jerusalem, that was burned up and destroyed. Why do you make simple things complicated? It's as if you're trying to prove to the world how much spiritual discernment you have while proving that you actually have very little. Spiritualizing the text for no reason is not a case of displaying spiritual discernment.

The issue is Matthew 22:7—and who exactly the army is, and how the city was destroyed, which you asked me to explain! You skipped right over that because you have no solid explanation or are unable to refute mine.

LOL. Please. Spare me your extreme nonsense. It very obviously is talking about Jerusalem being destroyed because they rejected the gospel. Very simple. I feel sorry for you that you can't even discern simple things. You have to turn everything into a convoluted mess.

Just parroting the phrase, “God punished them by destroying their city” doesn’t prove anything. Who was the army? When did God ever use His own "army" to destroy Jerusalem after the gospel invitation was rejected? You still haven't answered that—because your interpretation doesn’t hold up under biblical scrutiny.

He used the Roman army. Are you somehow not aware that He can use the wicked to do His will and to deliver His wrath and punishment if He wants to? Have you never read this...

Revelation 17:16 And the ten horns which you saw on the beast, these will hate the harlot, make her desolate and naked, eat her flesh and burn her with fire. 17 For God has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose, to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled.

You talk about “spiritual discernment,” yet your interpretation ignores the spiritual layers of the parable and treats God's judgment like it's just some Roman campaign. There’s no biblical basis for claiming God owned Rome as His instrument in that passage. And you still haven’t refuted that.

I have refuted so many of your arguments at this point, that's it's just utterly ridiclous for you to whine that I haven't addressed maybe one or two things that you've said. Grow up.

So before you accuse anyone of lacking discernment,

You lack discernment and prove it with every post you make.

try actually addressing the argument presented

I do that all the time. Stop complaining about me supposedly not addressing your arguments when I address more of your arguments than anyone else here.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You’re clearly not thinking this through. So let’s walk through it carefully—and I expect real answers this time, not deflection or mockery.


1.) When did the Jews (Old Testament congregation) lose their kingdom representation? Jesus said plainly in Matthew 21:42–43 that the kingdom of God would be taken from them and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits of it. So when exactly did that happen?


2.) When did the Gentile believers (New Testament congregation) receive the kingdom that was taken from the Jews? Matthew 21:43 implies a handoff. So, when was that fulfilled?


3.) In order to receive the kingdom, it has to fall first before being rebuilt—a principle affirmed in Acts 15:16 and Amos 9:11. So again, when did that fall and restoration happen?


4.) The temple fell, and in three days it was raised up again. Jesus said this in John 2:19. So when did that happen?


5.) When did the gospel of salvation begin to be preached? According to Revelation 12:9–10, it was after Satan was cast down at the Cross—meaning the real gospel era began after the resurrection, not after some military siege.


So here's the clear timeline:

• The kingdom was taken from unbelieving Israel (aka Old Testament congregation) at the Cross.
• It was given to the Church—the New Testament congregation—on the third day, and the Church received power at Pentecost.
• The gospel already went out to the nations long before 70 AD.

Buddy, you must have really terrible reading comprehension skills because I have NEVER denied any of that. I agree with all of that. You treat me like I'm a preterist, but I'm not. Get that through your head. But, none of that changes that God also punished the Jews in 70 AD by destroying many of the Jews, their city and their temple buildings while many other Jews were taken captive to all nations. This idea that only one or the other is talked about in scripture is just ludicrous.

If you’re actually looking for serious discussion,

Buddy, I'm the last person you should accuse of not looking for serious discussion. That's not a serious comment. You have serious delusions about not accepting simple scripture and making it unnecessarily convoluted. Just because I point that out doesn't mean I'm not being serious. You need to stop trying to prove how spiritual you supposedly are. If you really want to be spiritual, then start asking God for wisdom so that you can discern the difference between literal and figurative text and between physical and spiritual things.

then start by addressing the points and Scriptures I’ve already laid out—instead of brushing them off as “nonsense” just because they challenge your assumptions.

I’ve been asking direct, biblical questions that you still haven’t answered. That’s not ridicule—that’s accountability. So if you're ready to engage with Scripture instead of emotional posturing, then by all means, let’s have a serious conversation.

You ask a hundred questions. I'm not obligated to answer any of them, but I answer a lot of them and you show no appreciation that I, unlike many here, at least acknowledge things that you say and address them. Most of what you say isn't even worthy of being addressed, to be honest. Don't try to tell me what to do. I have MANY other things I could be doing besides talking to you and probably all of them would be time better spent. But, here you are expecting me to address every single question of the many questions you ask and address every single point of the many points you make. Get a clue.

 

[TribulationSigns]

I address more of your points than any person ever should bother spending time doing, so stop whining.


Don't blame me for your terrible communication skills. I'm just going by what you say. Learn to be more clear. You never did clear up what your point was regarding what happened to the seven churches in Revelation. Is being clear just not something you're interested in doing?


Hello? Then it should be clear that the ones who initially rejected the gospel were the Jews and it was their city, Jerusalem, that was burned up and destroyed. Why do you make simple things complicated? It's as if you're trying to prove to the world how much spiritual discernment you have while proving that you actually have very little. Spiritualizing the text for no reason is not a case of displaying spiritual discernment.


LOL. Please. Spare me your extreme nonsense. It very obviously is talking about Jerusalem being destroyed because they rejected the gospel. Very simple. I feel sorry for you that you can't even discern simple things. You have to turn everything into a convoluted mess.


He used the Roman army. Are you somehow not aware that He can use the wicked to do His will and to deliver His wrath and punishment if He wants to? Have you never read this...

Revelation 17:16 And the ten horns which you saw on the beast, these will hate the harlot, make her desolate and naked, eat her flesh and burn her with fire. 17 For God has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose, to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled.


I have refuted so many of your arguments at this point, that's it's just utterly ridiclous for you to whine that I haven't addressed maybe one or two things that you've said. Grow up.



You lack discernment and prove it with every post you make.


I do that all the time. Stop complaining about me supposedly not addressing your arguments when I address more of your arguments than anyone else here.

More of the same—empty noise, strawmen, and zero biblical refutation. You’ve proven nothing from Scripture. Not one solid answer to the questions I asked. Just recycled assumptions and blind defense of the flawed 70 AD theory.

It’s clear you’re committed to that view no matter how much it collapses under biblical scrutiny. And now you’re trying to play the “amillennial” card? That’s laughable. If you're truly amillennial, you're doing a poor job representing it. Either that, or you're redefining it to fit your narrative.

So far, all I’ve seen from you is mockery and misrepresentation—not a serious, Scripture-based response. I gave you many chances to explain, but i can see that you are still drowning in the sea of false doctrines of 70AD.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Buddy, you must have really terrible reading comprehension skills because I have NEVER denied any of that. I agree with all of that.

Doubtfully!

You treat me like I'm a preterist

Yes you are. Partial Preterist infused amillennialist. Stop denying.

Get that through your head. But, none of that changes that God also punished the Jews in 70 AD by destroying many of the Jews, their city and their temple buildings while many other Jews were taken captive to all nations.

Not supported by the bible. It's a speculation.

You have serious delusions about not accepting simple scripture and making it unnecessarily convoluted.

Not at all.

If you really want to be spiritual, then start asking God for wisdom so that you can discern the difference between literal and figurative text and between physical and spiritual things.

Done, and I can see that I am on the right path. Yours dont.

You ask a hundred questions. I'm not obligated to answer any of them,

Exactly what I expected—deflection instead of answers. You're dodging the questions because you realize that an honest response would unravel your entire position.

But since you won’t, let’s just be real: you're avoiding the questions because you can't answer them without contradicting yourself.

And if you can’t handle that level of honest engagement, then maybe it’s time for you to step out of the kitchen—and go for the door.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

More of the same—empty noise, strawmen, and zero biblical refutation.

LOL. You just have what I said confused with your own posts. As if Matthew 22 is not in the Bible? Your treatment of that parable along with many other scriptures that should be easy to discern is embarrassing. No one makes simple things convoluted more than you do.

You’ve proven nothing from Scripture.

Yes, I have. You just lack the discernment to see it. When you can't even understand Jesus's parables, that's a major red flag and your inability to understand what Matthew 22:7 is referring to says a lot about your level of spiritual discernment (it's very low).

Not one solid answer to the questions I asked. Just recycled assumptions and blind defense of the flawed 70 AD theory.

You have not given one solid thought this entire discussion. Spiritualizing the text needlessly does not make for a solid argument. Sometimes scripture is very simple and straightforward, but you apparently can't accept that.

It’s clear you’re committed to that view no matter how much it collapses under biblical scrutiny. And now you’re trying to play the “amillennial” card? That’s laughable. If you're truly amillennial, you're doing a poor job representing it. Either that, or you're redefining it to fit your narrative.

So far, all I’ve seen from you is mockery and misrepresentation—not a serious, Scripture-based response. I gave you many chances to explain, but i can see that you are still drowning in the sea of false doctrines of 70AD.

I have yet to see an argument from you that can be taken seriously. Making everything as complicated as possible in order to try to prove how spiritual you are or whatever the reason is does not make for serious arguments.

 

[Douggg]

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).

No text says that God put it into the hearts of the Romans to destroy Jerusalem and the temple.

The Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the temple because of the Jews rebellion against Roman rule and occupation.

 

[TribulationSigns]

You have not given one solid thought this entire discussion. Spiritualizing the text needlessly does not make for a solid argument.

Yawning...

Perhaps it's time that you should start listening to your advice:

"Don't try to tell me what to do. I have MANY other things I could be doing besides talking to you and probably all of them would be time better spent."

I will see about that if you do what you preach. So... just stay out of the hot kitchen.

 

[Davidpt]

“LOL”? That’s all you’ve got after completely dodging my actual point?



You’re so eager to sound smug that you missed the entire focus of my post. I never denied the general gospel progression—from Israel to the Gentiles. We all know Matthew 22 illustrates the gospel being rejected by the original invitees and extended to those in the highways. That's not even the issue.

The issue is Matthew 22:7—and who exactly the army is, and how the city was destroyed, which you asked me to explain! You skipped right over that because you have no solid explanation or are unable to refute mine. Just parroting the phrase, “God punished them by destroying their city” doesn’t prove anything. Who was the army? When did God ever use His own "army" to destroy Jerusalem after the gospel invitation was rejected? You still haven't answered that—because your interpretation doesn’t hold up under biblical scrutiny.

You talk about “spiritual discernment,” yet your interpretation ignores the spiritual layers of the parable and treats God's judgment like it's just some Roman campaign. There’s no biblical basis for claiming God owned Rome as His instrument in that passage. And you still haven’t refuted that.

So before you accuse anyone of lacking discernment, try actually addressing the argument presented. Because right now, all you’ve done is repeat a Sunday school summary and slap on some sarcasm—as if that proves you’ve rightly divided anything.

I’ll ask you again with your own question: Who were the armies? Who burned the city—and how does that line up with what Jesus actually said in Matthew 22:7, not just what you assume He meant? Until you can answer that, your post says more about your level of discernment than mine.

Matthew 22:7 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.
9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.


The way this reads to me. It is not until their city is burned up first, that the wedding is ready. Except it still needs guests since they which were bidden were not worthy. Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.

Therefore, this would mean if applying verse 7 to 70 AD, it wasn't until after 70 AD that verse 9 began to be fulfilled. Which makes perfect sense because verse 9 has to be involving a worldwide effort ultimately, except prior to 70 AD it was only involving things regionally not globally. Your bizarre spiritual interpretations of some of these things conceal these facts not reveal them. As if after 70 AD these things didn't eventually involve the entire planet and not just some small region in the ME.

I somewhat interpret Matthew 24:15-21 in a similar manner as you. Maybe not identical to how you do, yet in a similar manner. What I don't do is make nonsense out of some of these other Scriptures, such as Luke 21:20-24, the Matthew 22 parable in question, in the process. The point being, one can understand Matthew 24:15-21 in the manner I do, which is not the popular Preterist view, nor the popular Dispy view, where both views have it involving a literal temple, without having to treat all other Scriptures, such as Luke 21:20-24 and the Matthew 22 parable in question, in the same manner.

You take these things to the extreme sometimes. You won't allow that some of it can be understood in a literal sense. To be fair, the same thing can be said about these Preterists and Dispys I just mentioned. They take it to the extreme sometimes as well since they won't allow that some of it can be understood in a spiritual sense, such as Matthew 24:15-21. So, I'm not meaning the book of Revelation in this case.

I'm mainly meaning the Discourse and parables such as the Matthew 22 parable in question, since it is connected with the Discourse, in regards to their city being burned up, that being what Luke 21:20 led to eventually, a literal event. Which then led to--Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find--a global effort, not just a regional effort. Which, BTW, IMO, is what Matthew 24:9-14 is pertaining to, a global effort. Which then means verses 9-14 fit after 70 AD, therefore, making verses 15-21 also fitting after 70 AD. Clearly, per the Discourse, it is involving the fate of two temples rather than just the fate of one temple.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No text says that God put it into the hearts of the Romans to destroy Jerusalem and the temple.

That is what Matthew 22:7 indicates, but you lack the discernment to see it because of your doctrinal bias. If you read Matthew 23, Luke 19:41-44 and Matthew 22:1-7 it should be clear that it was God's plan to punish the Jews for their rebellion against Christ and that's exactly what He did.

The Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the temple because of the Jews rebellion against Roman rule and occupation.

That might have been what they were thinking, but God is able to use circumstances like that to fulfill His will and that's what He did. How can you not understand that God was angry because of most Jews rejecting His Son? What He did to them in 70 AD should serve as a warning to everyone that God, while being very patient, does not accept rebellion forever and He punishes people for it, including even the Jews. If He would do that to the Jews, which He did, then people should realize that He won't let anyone get away with rejecting Christ and rebelling against Him.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yawning...

Perhaps it's time that you should start listening to your advice:

"Don't try to tell me what to do. I have MANY other things I could be doing besides talking to you and probably all of them would be time better spent."

I will see about that if you do what you preach. So... just stay out of the hot kitchen.

Empty words from you again. It's all I can expect from you, apparently. You can't accept that scripture is sometimes very simple and straightforward. You must think "Surely, that text can't be literal! That would be too easy and simple! No, I must find a way to make it as convoluted as possible because nothing can be that simple!".

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Doubtfully!

This says it all about you. I did agree with everything you had said up to that point, but you say "doubtfully!". Who do you think you are to say otherwise? I know what I believe and I know I agreed with what you said about Jesus's body being the temple and the church being the temple of God and so on. You can't tell me what I believe. It's obviously pointless to talk to you any longer since you won't even accept it when I do agree with something you say. Forget it, man. Let me know if you ever grow up.

 

[TribulationSigns]

The way this reads to me. It is not until their city is burned up first, that the wedding is ready. Except it still needs guests since they which were bidden were not worthy. Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.

Therefore, this would mean if applying verse 7 to 70 AD, it wasn't until after 70 AD that verse 9 began to be fulfilled.

Your interpretation overlooks key scriptural context. Listen...

First, before you try to assign a timeline, ask the right questions: How was the city destroyed—and by whom? You’ll likely say it was Titus and the Roman soldiers in 70 AD. But Scripture does not explicitly mention Rome or Titus as the subject in Matthew 22:7. What does it say? “He sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.” Whose armies? God’s! He is the King in the parable, right? And HIS people are who? Of course, the Jews! Not some foreign troop who was in His army or people.

The phrase “the people of the prince that shall come” (Daniel 9:26) is often misapplied. It does not demand a Roman identity. The Jews—those who rejected and killed the prophets, and ultimately the Son—are the “murderers” in the parable!! Hello? They are God's army that brings destruction upon them and their city. In other word, their kingdom fell and its representative was taken. The destruction was divinely decreed. It already occured at the Cross, else, how could the temple rebuilt in three days if not at the cross? Humm?

Second, your view of the wedding invitation being sent only after the destruction contradicts the broader scriptural pattern. The gospel was already going out before 70 AD. The apostles were sent to the highways and byways—to the Gentiles—long before Jerusalem fell (Acts 13:46, Romans 11:11). The rejection by the original invitees (Israel) happened during Christ’s ministry and crucifixion. The call to others was already happening before the city's fall.

So no, Matthew 22:9 does not begin after 70 AD. It was already in motion. Scripture must interpret Scripture—not historical assumptions or strained timelines.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Where exactly did I ever teach that the thousand years come after a literal seven-year tribulation? Or that there’s a pre-tribulation rapture? Or that there's only one Antichrist? Or that part of the Olivet Discourse refers to the physical destruction of Jerusalem? Or that the physical temple will be rebuilt in modern Jerusalem under a peace treaty brokered by someone with a Nobel Peace Prize?

Please—show me the post where I taught any of that. You can’t, because I didn’t. Which means your accusation is completely baseless—a classic example of bearing false witness.

If you're going to accuse someone of “typical premill nonsense,” at least have the integrity to check their actual position first. I'm a true Amillennialist, unlike you with the stain of 70AD theory...LIKE a premill! And if you knew what that actually means, you'd realize how far off your claim really is.

Next time, try engaging with what I actually said instead of arguing with a strawman.

How about you try reading what I actually say? Goodness sakes. I didn't say anything about you agreeing with their view of those things (not all Premils are pretribs, by the way...hello?) . I was saying you are like them in the sense of not being able to discern when text is literal or figurative or when it's talking about something physical or spiritual. I never said you agree with everything they believe. You're always imagining things that no one is actually saying. It's similar to how you interpret scripture, so I guess that isn't surprising.