The "watch rapture view"

[Spiritual Israelite]

Matthew 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather(sunago) the wheat into my barn.

You would have us believe that this part has zero to do with a rapture---but gather the wheat into my barn? Since when does a rapture not involve a gathering? How do you propose that the wheat are gathered into His barn by bypassing a rapture? Keep in mind, when I say things like this, all I'm doing is forming an argument in general.

You're not thinking very carefully about this. When will it happen that the tares are cast into the fire? At the judgment after standing before Jesus, just like the goats in Matthew 25:31-46. So, the context of Matthew 13:30 is in relation to the judgment, not in relation to what happens right after Jesus descends from heaven. When He descends from heaven, who will be gathered first? The tares? No. The wheat (the righteous, the children of the kingdom) will be gathered and caught up to Christ in the air. And then He will physically destroy His enemies. That's not what is being described in Matthew 13:30. That verse is describing what will happen at the judgment like what we see with the sheep and goats in Matthew 25:31-46. Being cast into the fire is related to what happens at the judgment, as can be seen in Matthew 25:41 and Revelation 20:15.

And what about this verse?

Matthew 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather(episunago) together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

The text plainly says Christ sends His angels to do these things. In Matthew 13:30 (sunago)
is the Greek word used. In Matthew 24:31 (episunago) is the Greek word used. But even so, notice (episunago) is connected with (sunago).

episunago
ep-ee-soon-ag'-o
from epi - epi 1909 and sunagw - sunago 4863; to collect upon the same place:--gather (together).


In both accounts it is His anglels, not Christ Himself doing any of the gathering. In Revelation 14:14 the one meant in that verse is obviously taking part in the gathering.

Revelation 14:14-16 is symbolic text. It's not like it's talking about Jesus literally carrying a sickle and reaping people with it. Christ Himself is the one telling the angels what to do, so it is as if He is doing the reaping. You're constantly interpreting symbolic text literally and literal text symbolically and that's why you end up believing so much nonsense and why you end up trying to relate unrelated scriptures.

I don't know what your doctrinal reason is that you need Revelation 14:14 to be meaning Christ, but speaking for myself I don't have a doctrinal reason why I need it or not need it to be meaning Christ.

There isn't any reason, necessarily. It's just obvious to me because He is the Son of man and the reaping will occur by His command when He returns.

I'm just simply basing my conclusions on the fact, that if it is allegedly meaning Christ, in my mind that would cause a contradiction with both of these verses I submitted above.

Except you're conflating what happens right after He descends from heaven (rapture of believers, physical destruction of unbelievers) with what happens at the judgment (believers inherit eternal life in the kingdom of God, unbelievers are cast into the fire).

Not to mention, it is not reasonable that His angels can gather the wheat into His barn by bypassing a rapture in order to do so.

Yes, the rapture happens first, but after that all people are gathered before Christ's throne and then believers are gathered to His right hand while unbelievers are gathered to His left hand. So, there's multiple types of gatherings going on there and you're conflating the gathering of His people to Himself in the air with their being gathered and moved to His right hand when He is on His throne to judge.

Apparently, some ppl, unless something clearly and plainly says something, it can't mean this or that then since it doesn't clearly and plainly say so. A rapture can't be meant anywhere in Matthew 13:30, right?

Not based on the context of the verse, no. Unbelievers being cast into the fire is not something to contrast with the rapture, but rather is something to contrast with believers inheriting eternal life in the kingdom of God prepared for them from the foundation of the world at the judgment, like we see described in Matthew 25:31-46.

After all, one should never logically deduce something.

Do you think this is helpful to say ridiculous things like this? Of course, I would never say you should never logically deduce anything. But, the problem is that you rely entirely on human wisdom and logic all of the time, which is not wise. Human wisdom and logic are flawed and you can't always rely on that. There is no room for spiritual discernment in your method of interpretation.

Therefore, unless something clearly and plainly says something, it is wrong, it is bad, to logically deduce what all something might be involving.

Yeah, that's what I said. Come on, man. Grow up already. After all these years, you still talk like a little child.

No wonder I can't ever agree with you about much, Premil vs Amil aside, since you don't reason things the way I might,

As if the way you reason things is the way anyone should? Hardly. As I said, you rely completely on your own faulty human wisdom and logic. I never see you talking about needing to rely on the Holy Spirit for understanding, as Paul wrote about in 1 Corinthians 2:9-16.

that sometimes things can be logically deduced when the text does not come out and plainly say this or that. Or let me guess. You agree there are occasions when things can be logically deduced, except you think when I do that, that it doesn't count.

How are you logically deducing Matthew 13:30 when you didn't even take into account what should be contrasted with the tares being cast into the fire? Why did you not even take that into consideration?

I wish you were the same person I knew years ago on Bibleforums. I literally enjoyed discussing things with you.

Not long ago on this forum, I was calling for a truce between myself and you and Zao is life. He seemed interested for awhile, but then went back to his old rude and obnoxious ways, so I gave up on it. I tried the same with you and you never showed any interest in that. You just kept on being rude and making insults even after I offered an olive branch and tried to get you to agree to stop doing that. You showed no interest. So, I just gave up on it and assumed that you guys prefer communicating with the insults since that is what you kept doing even after I tried to stop it.

I literally enjoyed reading your replies to me. But now I no longer enjoy that.

I don't enjoy yours, either. Why are you acting innocent here? You did not show any interest in putting an end to the rude insults that were going on. Why? You should only blame yourself for ignoring my attempts to call a truce between us when it comes to that. That frustrated me that you ignored that, so I just gave up on it and assumed that you prefer it this way.

The truth is I don't even read the majority of your posts to me.

Why do you talk to me at all then? I don't know how many times you have posted something to me and then I responded and then you never respond back. I can only assume that you had no answers to my points. Why were you willing to post something to me once, but then you're not willing to respond to my points?

I also get very tired of you misrepresenting my view so often. You don't think you do, but you absolutely do. I know what I believe and I know when my view is being misrepresented. I don't know why you do it so often, but you do and it gets frustrating.

Mainly because I know they are going to be laced with mockery and ridicule throughout in regards to what I concluded.

As if you don't do that yourself? Stop being hypocritical. Look in the mirror. I tried to stop all that and you showed no interest. Why?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

And that's sad since I always read your posts addressed to me when I knew you on BF. Probably because those posts were never laced with mockery and ridicule in regards to what I may have been concluding at the time.

I have done that lately because of my frustration at you not responding when I tried to have us both stop doing that. You continued to make insults in your posts towards me and towards Amil even after I did that. You're not fooling me with your innocence act here. Give me a break.

I have a theory as to why. Probably because the Mods would not have let you get away with it there. But in a forum like this I get to know the real you, not the apparent phony you pretended to be on BF.

LOL. Again, I don't prefer to talk that way, but you showed no interest in talking any other way, so I assumed you were fine with it since you were talking that way yourself. Yes, we do definitely get away with more here than other forums. That's obvious.

I have no room to talk, of course.

After all that, now you say this. LOL. Okay. You should have said this earlier after acting like it's all me the whole time up to this point.

Some of my posts contain the same tone as yours.

Even after I tried to get you to agree with me to stop using that tone. That was very frustrating to me, so I just gave up on it.

Except my thinking is, if this person can dish it out this person should be able to take it.

I can certainly take it. I've taken a lot from several people on this forum.

In my mind you all started this mess

Oh boy, here we go...trying to blame everyone but yourself again...

a long time by falsely accusing me of representing Amil when I was doing no such thing.

You have done that many times. How can you think that you know Amil better than Amils do? That is ridiculous.

I know what it means to misrepresent someone, you apparently don't.

LOL. You don't know what it means even a tiny bit. It means that you describe someone else's view that does not accurately represent what that person actually believes. You do that frequently when it comes to Amil.

For example. If I said Amils are Pretribbers disguised as Post tribbers, that would be an example of blatantly misrepresenting Amil. I don't do things like that, though. Never have, never will since that would mean I'm being purposely deceitful if I were to do something like that.

For a long time, someone else was accusing you of doing it blatantly and I maintained that you were just doing it out of ignorance and not purposely. But, when you do it over and over again even after being corrected, I can't help but wonder if you're doing it purposely or not.

Back in those days I used to take the 2Ws in the literal sense. Even so, you treated me better back then than you do now

You really need to stop being hypocritical here. You treated me better back then than you do now, also. I honestly became fed up with you after I tried to call a truce between us in relation to the insults and you did not show any interest in that. All you said is you'll have to get back to me on that or something and you never did and you kept on making insults towards me and towards Amil itself.

, and it was because of you and my discussions with you at the time that I eventually quit taking the 2Ws in the literal sense. But that's the only thing you helped me eventually change my mind about.

You still take a lot of symbolic things literally for whatever reason. You just have a tendency to do that. It's a minor miracle that you even changed your mind about the two witnesses.

While OTOH, I have never changed your mind about anything, Premil vs Amil aside.

So what? Why does that matter? I changed your mind about one whole thing and that somehow makes a huge difference compared to you not changing my mind about one thing? Good grief. Humble yourself. This is all about your pride. Other people have influenced me to change my mind about a few things and I told you what those were. Are you just jealous that you weren't one of those people? Get over it. This is so petty. I suppose you'll complain about me being insulting here, but I think it's justifiable in this case.

Which then tells me that you view me being wrong about absolutely everything, Premil vs Amil aside, meaning anything we might not already agree on.

LOL. Read what you said here again. Of course I disagree with you about absolutely everything we don't already agree on. All that means is that we agree on the things we agree on and disagree on the things we disagree on. Obviously. You also disagree with me about absolutely everything that we don't already agree on. But, somehow, I'm the bad guy even though we can each say that same thing about each other.

The things we don't already agree on, apparently I am wrong about everyone of those things and that you are right about everyone of those things.

You are being incredibly hypocritical here. Can I not say the same thing about you that you apparently think I'm wrong about everything that we don't currently agree on? You say I changed your mind on a grand total of one thing all these years. Is that supposed to make me think that you will agree with me on something any time now that we haven't agreed on before? Hardly.

As if anybody can be that good to where they are never wrong, or that good to where they are never right.

I never said I'm never wrong. I gave you examples not long ago where I changed my mind on a few different things that I can say now that I believe I was wrong about. Did you forget about that like you seem to forget almost everything I ever say to you?

Look, David. This is just tiresome. I will try one more time to ask you to agree with me to stop making the rude comments and insults when we talk to each other from now on. And that includes any rude comments about the doctrines we each believe in and not just personal insults. Do you agree to at least try to do that? I'm willing. But, if you don't show any willingness like the last time I tried this, then I will just assume that you prefer to include rude comments and insults when talking to me.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Matthew 24:15-16 does not say the city of Jerusalem will be destroyed.

Douggg, you make a lot of arguments from silence. Do you know what an argument from silence is? It's when you make an argument based on what something doesn't specifically indicate as if that alone proves that the verse is not saying a certain thing. In this case, you argue that it does not specifically say that the city of Jerusalem will be destroyed, so it then can't even imply that in your mind.

But, Jesus was specifically asked when the temple buildings would be destroyed and He refers to an event causing desolation in Jerusalem (where the holy place was) in Matthew 24:15-16. So, it's clearly implied that He's talking about the destruction and desolation of the temple there and we know from passages like Luke 19:41-44 and Luke 21:20-24 that the destruction of the temple would occur when the destruction of Jerusalem occurred. You should not need the text to explicitly spell things out to you in order to understand what it means. Especially when there is a parallel passage like Luke 21:20-24 that gives further insight and details into what Jesus was talking about there.

Luke 21:20-24 was fulfilled historically in 70ad.

As were the parallel passages of Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20.

Matthew 24:15-16 is end times, when Jesus will return.

Nope. His return is a global event and Matthew 24:15-16 does not describe a global event.

Why do you think that only Luke would have recorded Jesus's answer to the question about the timing of the destruction of the temple buildings? Why would Matthew and Mark not have recorded His answer to that question?

Actually, if I recall correctly, you have said that He answers that question in Matthew 24:4-13? Is that correct? If so, do you think His answer to that question is recorded in Luke 21:7-19 as well? Do you see Luke 21:7-19, which is very similar to Matthew 24:4-13, as being parallel to Matthew 24:4-13?

The abomination of desolation in Daniel 12:11-12 is at the time of the end, Daniel 12:7, Daniel 12:9.

Jesus was referring to Daniel 9:26-27 because He said the temple buildings would be destroyed and that relates directly to Daniel 9:26-27.

 

[Douggg]

Douggg, you make a lot of arguments from silence. Do you know what an argument from silence is? It's when you make an argument based on what something doesn't specifically indicate as if that alone proves that the verse is not saying a certain thing. In this case, you argue that it does not specifically say that the city of Jerusalem will be destroyed, so it then can't even imply that in your mind.

Jesus returns to the Mt. of Olives in Jerusalem directly across from the temple mount. So Jerusalem is not destroyed in the end times when Jesus returns.

Also, in Revelation 11, the two witnesses bodies will lay dead in the streets of Jerusalem for three and a half days. So Jerusalem is not destroyed in the end times.

 

[Douggg]

But, Jesus was specifically asked when the temple buildings would be destroyed and He refers to an event causing desolation in Jerusalem (where the holy place was) in Matthew 24:15-16.

The disciples asked three questions, not one, in Matthew 24:3.

when would the temple be destroyed
what would be the sign of His coming
what would be the sign of the end of the world


Matthew 24:
1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

The temple was destroyed in 70ad.

The sign of the Son of man appearing heaven is still future.

The end of the world will be at the end of the millennium reign of Jesus.

 

[Douggg]

Nope. His return is a global event and Matthew 24:15-16 does not describe a global event.

Matthew 24:15-22 does describe a global event. Verse 22 reflects that all life on earth will end because of the great tribulation if the great tribulation is not cut short of that happening.

 

[TribulationSigns]

You speak nonsense.

Yet you have not refuted anything.

So many words to say nothing.

You are saying this becasue you cannot refute what I wrote.

To not acknowledge that Jesus talked at all about the destruction of the temple buildings in the Olivet Discourse despite being asked about the timing of that after telling the disciples the temple buildings would be destroyed is ludicrous.

No, you are being ludicrous. You do not have a spiritual understanding of what Christ talked about in the first two verses of Matthew 24, for example:

Mat 24:1-2
(1) And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
(2) And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

I have no problem with them saying the disciples spoke of the literal temple (G2411 - hieron). IN fact, we can see it's quite obvious. The disciples were NOT greatly enlightened as yet so were still thinking in terms of the Old Testament dispensation, as the Holy Spirit of "revealing" had not been poured out at Pentecost yet.

John 16:12

• "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
• Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
• He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you."

John 14:26

• "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."

Revelation is not instant, as many things were revealed to the Disciples progressively. We can see remnants of this "even" after Pentecost as Peter was talking about requiring circumcision in the church, and his poor understanding of the lawfulness of eating unclean meats. We're talking about progressive Revelation here, bud! The Disciples were still thinking in terms of Old Testament Temple, when Christ was revealing the mystery of new and Spiritual things that the emporal merely "represented." Christ is illuminating (to them, and by extention, us) the fall of the Old Testament Temple as a type of the Old Testament congregation, and the coming restoration/rebuilding of the Temple and Holy City in the New Testament type of the New Testament body of Christ--which is the church (Acts 15:14-17).

Note the language as Christ "went out of the Temple," and He "departed from it." Granted, it may seem coincidental language that this is when they pointed out the Temple buildings. But it has a Spiritual meaning! The Disciples are illustrating the great pride they (being Jews) had in this glorious building, and such reverence for the greatness of it as the pride of Israel. They put so much stock in their bloodline and Jewish traditions, when without Christ their Messiah, this was all meaningless. What it represented would be thrown down. Selah! Many of the Jews (and their cousins the Premillennialists, Dispensationalists, PReterists, and oh yes, like YOU and Preterism infused amillennialists today) had put all their trust in the natural/physical/temporal, and God was prophesying in the Spiritual--which isn't an anomaly since this is what Christ did throughout His ministry. Just like when the disciples' brethren, the Jews, asked Jesus for a sign. And He gave them one, even though they didn't even realize it or its significance. They missed it because they were thinking like many in the church today, in terms of a literal Temple being destroyed, and Christ was responding to their question by prophesying in spiritual terms. Not one stone left standing one upon another is very specific illustrating that it is completely vanished, totally GONE! It no longer represented the Holy One of Israel. The Disciples in that episode were glorying over a building, and Christ is saying what it represents will be taken away completely in God's economy. His words are not ever coincidental, they are deliberate. Again, as in His promise of the sign to the Jews (which they asked for) was fulfilled, and all they could think about was a literal build--just li the congregation today. But whether or not men ever understand what Temple Christ was speaking of, doesn't mean that he spoke of a physical, literal, brick Temple. Because the Holy Spirit being poured out at Pentecost would eventually reveal the "real" deeper Spiritual truth of His words--to His people. e.g., when Christ threw the buyers and sellers out of the Temple (G2411 - hieron)

John 2:18-21

• "Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
• Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
• Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
• But he spake of the temple of his body."

That word Temple Christ used there is a different word (G3485 - naos), but it is obvious that the words are interchangeable as the Jews spoke of the physical building, declaring it took 46 years to build. And note Christ never told them that He spoke of the Temple of His body, it remained a mystery to them. But it is written by the Apostle John for us, who would come after and receive the deeper Spiritual truth of His words. True to His words, they did destroy the Temple, and Christ did raise it up in three days, and it was the sign that Jesus had the power/authority to do these things--as they had asked. A sign that many are blinded to from that day to this very day.

The truth is many Jews looked upon the Gentiles as Dogs and Swine and gloried in the fact that they were the chosen seed of Abraham that could never fall from that (in their minds). Even as many in the premillennial/Dispensational church today think the church can never fall. But the fact is, they did fall and the congregation today is no better than the congregation was then. Because their eyes were on the temporal rather than the Spiritual, even as the Disciples were admiring the great buildings of the Jewish nation. The Premillennial and Dispensational church today feels the very same way about the nation of Israel's position because their hermeneutic is almost identical in its looking at God's word only literally (John 3:4) and to some degree having great disdain for God authored Spiritual truths. It's simply the other side of that "exact same" coin of methodology. Stones represent the people--both those who fell and those who would be raised up/ built again, when we understand the builder and maker is God. i.e.:

Matthew 3:9-10

• "And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
• And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire."

Yes, God was able of those stones to raise up children unto Abraham, And He Did! Not literal stones, but Spiritual ones. Get it, humm?

Galatians 3:29

• "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

Nothing coincidental about the language of God raising up stones as the children of Abraham, though it may seem so to many who seem antithetical to the Spirit of truth. Nothing coincidental about stones being the building of the church, or the stones being made of wood hay and stubble, or of gold silver and precious gems "when we gracefully receive God authored Spiritual truths!" The word temple (G2411 - hieron) used by the Disciples doesn't preclude Christ from talking about a spiritual Temple any more than the word temple (G3485 - naos) that the Jews used in saying it took 46 years to build it precluded Christ from speaking of His body and not whatever building the Jews spoke of.

Luke 21:20-24 is clearly a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-22 and it describes exactly what happened in 70 AD.

Nope!

You will never convince me that what you're saying is true because I will never accept the foolish claim that Jesus did not answer the disciples question about when the temple buildings would be destroyed.

Not up to me. Go talk with God yourself for understanding. :)

 

[TribulationSigns]

Also @Spiritual Israelite, no one is privately interpreting stones of the Temple to represent God's people; Christ is. The idea is not what the Jews or the Disciples thought at the time, but what Christ says all throughout Scripture. Christ is the only prophet who is never wrong, and He said not one stone would be left standing one upon another in both the city and of the Holy Temple. You might ask them (if these things were to be understood literally) how come there are stones left standing one upon another in the city and of the Temple foundations?

Not that this truth will matter much to those who turn to the right hand and to the left to avoid the truth of that matter.

As I said, there are not many Berean-like Christians who will do anything but ignore the facts, and argue the Hebrew and Greek nuances with you, and neglect the most important part of interpretations--which is they belong to God.

Isaiah 8:14

• "And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem."

It is written, the Stone the builders rejected, is become the head of the corner--of a new building after the fall. Christ is the cornerstone, and we are spiritually the stones that were built again. Just as the Jews was as the Old Testament congregation! But for those who are not part of that restoration, not one of them was left standing one upon another in that Old Testament Temple. 70 A.D. notwithstanding!

 

[Zao is life]

How can you be this ignorant? The person Luke was writing to directly, whose name was Theophilus, was Greek and, obviously, a Gentile. He addressed the book of Acts to Theophilus as well.

Luke 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

It still does not mean Luke was not writing for the benefit of the Jewish believers in the diaspora as well as for the Gentile converts. His letter was passed from church to church, else it would not have ended up in the Canon. He wasn't "only" writing for the person he addressed the letter to, as your assertion implies. Nor is there any evidence at all that Luke was paraphrasing anything, as you falsely asserted.
​

Do you think it would have made sense for Luke to write "let the reader understand" based on a prophecy in Daniel to Theophilus and other Gentiles who would have had no knowledge of any of Daniel's prophecies? Of course not.

Another weak and beggarly argument that's offered as 'evidence' that Luke 21:20-24 and Matthew 24:15-22 are parallel passages. It shows how the mind can convince the person that something is evidence of a falsehood he has faith in, like someone firmly believing that a photo of a frisbee is a photo of a flying saucer.

Jesus was talking to his Jewish disciples about an abomination of desolation in the holy place spoken of by Daniel the prophet in Matthew 24:15 and they would NOT have identified that with the destruction of the city. The opposite is the case:​

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

"'Abomination of Desolation' is a phrase from the Book of Daniel describing the pagan sacrifices with which the 2nd century BC Greek king Antiochus IV Epiphanes replaced the twice-daily offering in the Jewish temple, or alternatively the altar on which such offerings were made."
(Abomination of desolation - Wikipedia)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

It was not associated with the destruction of either the city or the temple, because as Jesus' audience well knew, the temple was cleansed afterward and the daily sacrifices were renewed, and the city was not destroyed at the time either. The celebration based on the history (hannukah) was celebrated even by Jesus.

The words abomination of desolation in the holy place spoken of by Daniel the prophet had nothing to do with the abominations (plural) spoken about in Daniel 9:26-27 which are associated with the destruction of both the city and the temple by the text in Daniel 9:26-27.

But the words ""But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near." they would have understood immediately to be talking about what the words say.

Imagine how confused the disciples would have been if He had been talking about an abomination of desolation in the holy place and the destruction of the city in the same breath.

Matthew 24
Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house, and let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes.

Luke 21
When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. Let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her.

You flatly ignore the fact that whereas in the context of Matthew 24, Jesus is talking about tribulation that will come upon His disciples at the end of the age, in the context of Luke 21:20, Jesus is talking about the great distress that will come upon those who will suffer the wrath of God coming upon Jerusalem.

Then you conclude that "For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be" = "For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people."
​

And this is why you have NO CLUE as to why Matthew 24:15 uses the word "Therefore" to link what is being said in verses 15-22 with the tribulation of the disciples that was being spoken about in Matthew 24:9-14, and so you just flatly ignore that word too.

And so in your ignorance of scripture you conclude that because the words “Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days!" are the same in both passages, Jesus is talking about the same thing in both passages.

You desperately cling to your ignorance of what an abomination in the holy place spoken of by Daniel the prophet would signify to the Jews, so that you can cling to your faith in your assertion that the passages are parallel passages.​

I love how you copy the words I use to describe your arguments. So original.

Yes, my attempts to make you see how lame your "descriptions" are and how totally useless they are at supporting anything you're saying do not help you - ever. So even that is pointless. You just don't get it:

What is lame and incredibly weak is your lack of effort to research who the book of Luke was addressed to. You just make assumptions without even looking into it. You didn't even bother reading the beginning of the book to see that it was address to the Gentile Theophilus.

It's useless trying to get you to see how you're looking at yourself in a mirror when you speak like you do above because your mouth is always open hurling out the insults you always begin with, and so your ears are always shut.

With you it's like "Mirror, mirror on the wall. Whose argument is the weakest and lamest of them all"?, and "Mirror, mirror on the wall, whose argument is the best and strongest of them all?"

It's all so ridiculous and incredibly childish. Yet you can't stop.