The "watch rapture view"

[Spiritual Israelite]

I never denied what Christ said about the temple—don’t twist it.

Yes, you have. Why are you denying that now? So, tell me how you interpret this then..

Mark 13:1 As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!” 2 “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

The real difference here is that I actually understand what He was talking about.

LOL! You are a comedian. Do you do stand up comedy for a living?

And spoiler alert: it’s not what you think it is.

LOL. Keep the jokes coming, funny man.

It’s painfully clear you haven’t been enlightened—or maybe never will be if you keep clinging to the dead weight of partial preterism. But hey, stubbornness is a doctrine too, right?

LOL! I interpret a grand total of one passage in the Olivet Discourse the way partial preterists do and that makes me one of them? What a joke. If you are not currently a comedian then you have missed your calling.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Entire Bible? LOL!

Yes, I did exaggerate. It seems to be just a vast majority of the Bible that you spiritualize instead of literally all of it.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Mark 13:1 As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!” 2 “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

There were "LOTS" of stones left standing, one upon another after 70 AD. And many still left standing one upon another 2000 years later.

Yes, that is true. Thus 70 AD cannot rationally be the fulfillment of that particular prophesy "IF" it was meant of the Physical buildings of the Temple being thrown down.

Mark 13:1-2

• "And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!
• And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

And before you start rationalizing how those stones were not of the main Temple building like so many others, please pay careful attention that Christ spoke not only of the Temple, its buildings, but also of all the buildings of the ENTIRE Holy City Jerusalem.

Luke 19:41-44

• "And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
• Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
• For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
• And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation."

Now, logically speaking, "IF" Christ was really addressing the physical stones of the Temple and the physical Holy City Jerusalem, then it is ridiculous to say 70 AD qualifies since we all know that many many stones are left standing one upon another to this very day 2000+ years later, and I bet that you DENIED it. Not surprised. And "hyperbole" is just a word used when YOU doesn't like exactly what Christ said. He was very specific, not one stone left standing one upon another. The "ONLY" Holy City and Temple that could meet that criteria is the corporate congregation of the nation of Israel. Not the Physical building, but as they were the building of God to whom pertained the Covenants before the cross. Are you in denial that the Jews as the body of Christ were builders who rejected Christ?

That should settle it, but of course it won't because a myriad of professing Christians choose to cling to these ideas supported by Josephus' writings and Church traditions as if they were gold. Well, his words aren't Gold, but God's word is. It always gets back to "authority" of God's word or man's.

Revelation 3:18

• "I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see."

That's not physical gold you can purchase in the church, neither physical clothing nor eyesalve. But you know that. How is it you can discern the face of the sky, but can not discern the signs of the times, eh?

LOL! You are a comedian. Do you do stand up comedy for a living?

And the Pharisees thought Christ was a comedian too.

LOL! I interpret a grand total of one passage in the Olivet Discourse the way partial preterists do and that makes me one of them?

Yep! Preterism-infused Amillennialist.

Look, I know there are a ton of Amillennialist, Postmillennialist, and Preterist theologians cling to this theory of the Temple falling. It's the "easy" thing to believe since the Jewish Temple was indeed destroyed. So it's easy for theologians to ignore or justify the fact that it doesn't "actually" fit with all the requirements of the actual text of prophecy. To cover this they say things like Christ was speaking in hyperbole, or it was actually exaggerated for effect, or it wasn't literally meant that not one stone would be left standing. However, isn't that their whole point--that it was "literally" fulfilled in 70 AD? To be honest, it's a product of sloppy exegesis, or often even eisegesis!

 

[Zao is life]

Do me a favor. Since you think He said what is recorded in Luke 21:20-24 separately from what is recorded in Matthew 24:15-22. Put your money where your mouth is for once and combine Matthew 24 and Luke 21 together to show me when you think Jesus said what is recorded in Matthew 24:15-22 in relation to what is recorded in Luke 21:20-24.

LOL. The disrespectful tone of your posts still comes from the explosions of arrogance being splattered all over the place whenever you drop your ignorance bombs so neatly packaged in your hubris.

You do not have much discernment at all, do you?

Firstly your argument means nothing if you deny the fact that Jesus spoke about all the things recorded in Matthew 24 and Luke 21:20-24 only possibly on the same day and from the same location,

because Luke 11, Luke 13, and Luke 17 have Jesus saying the same things on His way to Jerusalem that Matthew has Him say in the temple and on the Mount of Olives - and it's almost word-for word quotes.

So we can't be 100% sure that Jesus mentioned the attack on Jerusalem (Luke 21:20-24) on the Mount of Olives and the same day that Matthew records Jesus speaking about the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place.

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 24:14-18 & 26-28
- on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem -

"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. 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."

Luke 11:42-52

has Jesus castigating the scribes and Pharisees while still on the way to Jerusalem for exactly the same things that - almost word for word - that Matthew has Him castigating the scribes and Pharisees for in the temple on the same day that He later gave the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 23:23-33;

and Luke 13:34-35 has Jesus weeping over Jerusalem and telling them that their house is left to them desolate before even arriving in Jerusalem, and Matthew has Him saying the same things in the temple on the same day that He later gave the Olivet Discourse.

See if you can find a common theme between Nero - who persecuted the saints BEFORE 70 A.D, and Revelation 13:7:

"It was given unto the beast to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and authority was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations." (Revelation 13:7).

Now see if you can find a common theme between the things written about below:-

Luke 21:24
They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led away as captives among all nations.

Revelation 13:10
He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword.

Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

Luke 21:24
Jerusalem will be trampled down by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

Revelation 11:2
The holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

Your amateur interpretation of the Olivet Discourse does not even bear in mind that Luke, by his own admittance, was not an eyewitness, but had collected different accounts from different eyewitnesses, and it's no wonder therefore that he does not have Jesus saying the same things that Matthew has Him saying, on the same day that Matthew does:

You cannot even acknowledge the fact that Luke's record of when Jesus said certain things does not always correlate with Matthew's record

- and this is on top of the fact that you cannot even acknowledge that Jesus giving armies gathering against Jerusalem as a sign to His disciples that its destruction was close,

has nothing to with an abomination of desolation appearing in the holy place.

On top of all that, you have Jesus referring to a physical temple in Jerusalem as the holy place even though you know perfectly well that Jesus knew, and had already stated that His body is the temple of God,

and from 40 years before AD70 the temple in Jerusalem had not been the holy place

- yet you do not see anything strange about why in that case Jesus would not have called Jerusalem the holy city in Luke 21:20.

You have a city conflated with the holy place of a temple in Luke 21:20 as though Jesus was referring to the New Testament heavenly Jerusalem and the New Testament tabernacle of God in both Luke 21:20 AND Matthew 24:15.

Jesus was not referring to the holy place of the temple of God in Luke 21:20.

Besides this, your question is as ridiculous as asking me how long before or how long after it was that Jesus spoke about Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, that He spoke about birth-pain signs of the end of the age, or about the sun and moon growing dark or about the five wise and the five foolish virgins.

It's a ridiculous question. No one except an eyewitness who was present on that day listening to Jesus would know at what point He spoke about armies gathering around Jerusalem. Do YOU know the answer to your own question?

But you make it obvious by such silly questions that you are unable to discern much.

You seem to think that there is no paraphrasing by Luke at all in Luke 21:20-24.

That's once again a ridiculous argument. I'm not even sure it warrants the time taken to read it, let alone reply.

One passage is speaking about a city being surrounded by armies and Luke has Jesus specifically telling His disciples that when they see those armies gather around Jerusalem, they should know that the city's destruction is near.

The other passage has Jesus talking about a holy place, and an abomination standing in it.

Which means that by your ridiculous argument you are saying that the reason that Luke did not call Jerusalem the holy place in Luke 21:20 is because he was paraphrasing what Jesus said in Matthew 24:15,

- just because Luke's and Mark's records of the disciples' question are not word-for-word the same as Matthew's.

Ask God to give you understanding of His Word, and the ability to discern - but you have to be prepared to abandon your determination to believe what you want to believe regarding Matthew 24:15 and Luke 21:20 - because until now you have provided a LOT of evidence that what you believing regarding this is what you want to believe.

@TribulationSigns has a much better understanding of Matthew 24:9-31 than you do so instead of belittling his view and my view and @Davidpt;s view the way you have been doing, you should rather, after first praying to God for discernment, reconsider what you tell yourself about your level of discenment when it comes to this passage.

 

[TribulationSigns]

It is no secret that "most" theologians believe 70 ad fulfilled the prophecy of the fallen Temple. Because most of the church doesn't have their eyes focused on Christ. Their eyes are on temporal things of this world, like physical genealogies, nations, temple buildings, holy lands, wars, famines, prosperity, pestilence, angels, their belly, and such. And just as those who went before them, they totally miss that the point of prophecy is a Spiritual lesson using physical imagery to represent "deeper" Spiritual truths. As our examples, even Christ's disciples missed the point of representations, and Christ had to provide revelation concerning the cryptic nature of His Words. e.g.

Matthew 16:11-12

• "How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
• Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees."

Bread represented doctrine. Wine represented His blood. Water Baptism represented spiritual ablutions. The promised land was a Spiritual inheritance. And so on and so forth. God wants us to worship Him in Spirit and truth, not in meat, drink or physical stones. Not being a citizen in physical Jerusalem, but being a citizen of Spiritual Jerusalem. Likewise, the city and temple of prophecy where Christ said they would have every stone thrown down, was not the literal city and temple He was speaking of. It was the Old Testament body of Moses who remained under law and rejected Him as the cornerstone of its rebuilding following its fall. It was because of the abominations in God's house that they were cast down as stones from a temple, and not one left standing. i.e., the whole house was destroyed, and a new house built upon better promises was constructed. The kingdom representation was taken from them, and given to another. This is all a Spiritual portrait that can be seen in Jeremiah's prophecy.

Jeremiah 8:12-13

• "Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore shall they fall among them that fall: in the time of their visitation they shall be cast down, saith the LORD.
• I will surely consume them, saith the LORD: there shall be no grapes on the vine, nor figs on the fig tree, and the leaf shall fade; and the things that I have given them shall pass away from them."

According to Scripture the time of their visitation is when Christ came, and that is when there were abominations, and that is when they were cast down. Not 70 AD, but even as Christ Himself spoke of this when weeping over the City in plainly declaring not one stone would be left standing there that was not cast down. 70 AD does not qualify! Period.

Yes, I would imagine that "probably" most theologians believe 70 ad fulfilled the prophecy of the fallen temple and city because their eyes are on the physical and not the Spiritual. God is not interested in judging bricks or stones of a city or a temple, but the church and its people who were "represented" by them. Remember when Christ wept over the city of Jerusalem (the representation of the Old Testament church), and then made the prophecy concerning it saying not one stone would be left standing? He then "cast out" the "buyers and sellers" from the Holy Temple. That whole scenario of the city and its temple represented the congregation/church of that day, and that temple represented His body that people would destroy. The buyers and sellers cast out represent those who are judged at that time by God. If it represented the literal city and literal temple as supposed, then the prophecy has not been fulfilled because no one can honestly say every stone was thrown down. That was a requirement of the prophecy. And yet every stone was cast/thrown down of the spiritual city Jerusalem because God completely destroyed her where she no longer represented the church. The kingdom was taken from that congregation and given to another. Thus that city and temple are left desolate because of the abominations that stood in it. e.g.

Luke 19:41-45

• "And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
• Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
• For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
• And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.
• And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought;"

It cannot get much plainer than that. The reason the congregation is judged is because they rejected Christ, not knowing the time of their visitation. Remember the prophecy in Jeremiah? Christ is here talking to a city, and saying her children within her would "all" be thrown down right along with her. ...and they were, not one left standing because there is now constructed a "New" Testament church, built with living stones, with Christ being the chief cornerstone of that temple. Theologians are looking elsewhere when the truth is right in front of their eyes. It is because they lack spiritual discernment.

What I am seeing lately is people get enamored with what they can see, with ministers with smooth words, with authors who attempt to make everything practical, and with historians, and especially those who say things that prop up things that they already believe. My hermeneutic is that secular historians cannot interpret God's Word. No man can. Interpretations belong to God and so unless our interpretations come from the Bible, it's not God's Word.

2nd Corinthians 5:7

• "For we walk by faith, not by sight."

Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. It is derived from the Spirit and strengthened by the Word, not by seeing buildings fall in 70 AD. You don't need the faith of Christ to believe that, YOU need to believe (have faith) in secular historians. You have to believe things that are contradicted by the biblical record, and you have to believe that Christ was not referencing Jeremiah when He spoke of the time of Israel's visitation, casting down, and the kingdom was taken from them. Moreover, if Christ is the chief cornerstone for the restoration or rebuilding of the Holy Temple, what Temple was thrown down that it needed rebuilding exactly?? Selah.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

There were "LOTS" of stones left standing, one upon another after 70 AD.

Oh, really? Were you there? I don't think so.

And many still left standing one upon another 2000 years later.

LOL! Your comedy routine continues. Show me a picture of them.

Yes, that is true.

Prove it then. Good luck.

Thus 70 AD cannot rationally be the fulfillment of that particular prophesy "IF" it was meant of the Physical buildings of the Temple being thrown down.

LOL. You clearly have never read about what happened in Jerusalem at that time and you are instead just making assumptions based on what you want to be true.

Mark 13:1-2

• "And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!
• And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

And before you start rationalizing how those stones were not of the main Temple building like so many others, please pay careful attention that Christ spoke not only of the Temple, its buildings, but also of all the buildings of the ENTIRE Holy City Jerusalem.

Luke 19:41-44

• "And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
• Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
• For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
• And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation."

Now, logically speaking, "IF" Christ was really addressing the physical stones of the Temple and the physical Holy City Jerusalem, then it is ridiculous to say 70 AD qualifies since we all know that many many stones are left standing one upon another to this very day 2000+ years later

You are very ignorant and there's no excuse for that. The entire city was destroyed at that time. Read about it. Don't make me do all the work for you. There was no stone left upon another just as Jesus said. You deny obvious things. You should be embarrassed.

, and I bet that you DENIED it. Not surprised. And "hyperbole" is just a word used when YOU doesn't like exactly what Christ said. He was very specific, not one stone left standing one upon another. The "ONLY" Holy City and Temple that could meet that criteria is the corporate congregation of the nation of Israel. Not the Physical building, but as they were the building of God to whom pertained the Covenants before the cross. Are you in denial that the Jews as the body of Christ were builders who rejected Christ?

That should settle it, but of course it won't because a myriad of professing Christians choose to cling to these ideas supported by Josephus' writings and Church traditions as if they were gold. Well, his words aren't Gold, but God's word is. It always gets back to "authority" of God's word or man's.

Revelation 3:18

• "I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see."

That's not physical gold you can purchase in the church, neither physical clothing nor eyesalve. But you know that. How is it you can discern the face of the sky, but can not discern the signs of the times, eh?



And the Pharisees thought Christ was a comedian too.



Yep! Preterism-infused Amillennialist.

Look, I know there are a ton of Amillennialist, Postmillennialist, and Preterist theologians cling to this theory of the Temple falling. It's the "easy" thing to believe since the Jewish Temple was indeed destroyed. So it's easy for theologians to ignore or justify the fact that it doesn't "actually" fit with all the requirements of the actual text of prophecy. To cover this they say things like Christ was speaking in hyperbole, or it was actually exaggerated for effect, or it wasn't literally meant that not one stone would be left standing. However, isn't that their whole point--that it was "literally" fulfilled in 70 AD? To be honest, it's a product of sloppy exegesis, or often even eisegesis!

Your made up nonsense is far from exegesis. You can't fool me with that nonsense. Why are you even trying? You can't even discern that Satan is a real fallen angel. You have said Satan represents man's own sinful desires. Uh...hello? Jesus was not tempted in the desert for 40 days and nights by His own sinful desires. He was tempted by our number one spiritual enemy who is called the devil and Satan. He must laugh hysterically at anyone who denies his existence.

 

[TribulationSigns]

@Spiritual Israelite

The Jewish Temple being destroyed does NOT make your point, since your point is that "this" fulfills prophecy. That's misleading, a red herring that distracts from the point--which is that the prophecy was "never" that the Jewish Temple would be destroyed. The prophecy was clearly that the Temple and the City would all be laid even with the ground, where not one stone would be left standing one upon another as the Temple, the city, and her children within her, are all thrown down. No one with any real knowledge (Scripture or otherwise) can claim that this literally happened in 70 AD!! If it did, there would have been no buildings in the city left, and so I've made my point.

2nd Timothy 3:16

• "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

Your point is found wanting because AD 70 just doesn't qualify as fulfillment of God's specific promises in the prophecy. The only way it would meet the God authored criteria is if that physical city was laid even with the ground where not one stone was left standing one upon another. That's not my words of qualification, it's God's Word. God is always very pointed and very specific with what He says. All through Scripture, when God says something will happen, it will happen just as He said it would. Not as people might re-imagine that it means, even though it doesn't say what they claim.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It is no secret that "most" theologians believe 70 ad fulfilled the prophecy of the fallen Temple. Because most of the church doesn't have their eyes focused on Christ.

Buddy, this has nothing to do with whether one's eyes are focused on Christ or not. It has to do with spiritually discerning the meaning of scripture. You think believing that Jesus prophesied that the temple buildings standing at that time would be destroyed keeps me from focusing on Christ? As if believing that keeps me from having faith in Christ and doing what I can to serve Him? Get serious and get off your hyper-spiritualized high horse. Your holier than thou act is not fooling anyone.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

@Spiritual Israelite

The Jewish Temple being destroyed does NOT make your point, since your point is that "this" fulfills prophecy. That's misleading, a red herring that distracts from the point--which is that the prophecy was "never" that the Jewish Temple would be destroyed.

That is exactly what Jesus said would happen and it did happen, so stop boring me with your unwillingness to accept obvious truths taught in scripture.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

LOL. The disrespectful tone of your posts still comes from the explosions of arrogance being splattered all over the place whenever you drop your ignorance bombs so neatly packaged in your hubris.

LOL. You are incredibly hypocritical. I guess you don't read your own posts.

It's also hysterical how you complain about long posts that WPM makes as if they are too long to read when you frequently make long posts yourself. The hypocrisy flows from you.

You do not have much discernment at all, do you?

I can discern that you have no idea of what you're talking about.

Firstly your argument means nothing if you deny the fact that Jesus spoke about all the things recorded in Matthew 24 and Luke 21:20-24 only possibly on the same day and from the same location,

LOL. Look at this foolishness. Why are you so dishonest? Are you that desperate to make scripture say what you want it to say? There is no question that there is only one Olivet Discourse and it is recorded in Matthew 24-25, Mark 13 and Luke 21. To think otherwise is utterly ridiculous. I guess you have decided you don't want to be taken seriously at all? You have decided to go to extremes to make Matthew 24 say what you want it to say? That's what it looks like to me.

because Luke 11, Luke 13, and Luke 17 have Jesus saying the same things on His way to Jerusalem that Matthew has Him say in the temple and on the Mount of Olives - and it's almost word-for word quotes.

Of course He talked about some things on more than one occasion. But, there is no indication whatsoever that what is recorded in Matthew 24-25, Mark 13 and Luke 21 were things He said on separate days. That's ridiculous.

So we can't be 100% sure that Jesus mentioned the attack on Jerusalem (Luke 21:20-24) on the Mount of Olives and the same day that Matthew records Jesus speaking about the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place.

Yes, we can. You must be starting to doubt yourself and you're now desperately trying to find an excuse for denying the obvious that Matthew 24:15-22 is a parallel passage to Luke 21:20-24.

It's interesting how you don't try to claim the same thing about the verses which come before or after each passage. You don't try to claim that Matthew 24:4-14 is not parallel to Luke 21:7-19, right?

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

That's not the Olivet Discourse. Jesus surely didn't speak about His second coming on only one occasion. He certainly repeated things at times on separate days since He knew that things sometimes didn't sink in with His disciples and others after telling them something once. But, the Olivet Discourse occurred on one day and not multiple days. There is no basis for thinking otherwise.

"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 24:14-18 & 26-28
- on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem -

"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. 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."

Luke 11:42-52

has Jesus castigating the scribes and Pharisees while still on the way to Jerusalem for exactly the same things that - almost word for word - that Matthew has Him castigating the scribes and Pharisees for in the temple on the same day that He later gave the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 23:23-33;

and Luke 13:34-35 has Jesus weeping over Jerusalem and telling them that their house is left to them desolate before even arriving in Jerusalem, and Matthew has Him saying the same things in the temple on the same day that He later gave the Olivet Discourse.



Your amateur interpretation of the Olivet Discourse does not even bear in mind that Luke, by his own admittance, was not an eyewitness, but had collected different accounts from different eyewitnesses, and it's no wonder therefore that he does not have Jesus saying the same things that Matthew has Him saying, on the same day that Matthew does:

You cannot even acknowledge the fact that Luke's record of when Jesus said certain things does not always correlate with Matthew's record

What are you talking about? As usual, you are trying to make things more complicated than they are. We're talking about the Olivet Discourse here. You are trying to say that Luke's record in Luke 21 doesn't correlate with Matthew 24? What do you mean by that? Are you saying that there are things in Luke 21 that would contradict things recorded in Matthew 24 if they are part of the same discourse? If not, then explain what you mean.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

- and this is on top of the fact that you cannot even acknowledge that Jesus giving armies gathering against Jerusalem as a sign to His disciples that its destruction was close,

has nothing to with an abomination of desolation appearing in the holy place.

On top of all that, you have Jesus referring to a physical temple in Jerusalem as the holy place even though you know perfectly well that Jesus knew, and had already stated that His body is the temple of God,

and from 40 years before AD70 the temple in Jerusalem had not been the holy place

- yet you do not see anything strange about why in that case Jesus would not have called Jerusalem the holy city in Luke 21:20.

You have a city conflated with the holy place of a temple in Luke 21:20 as though Jesus was referring to the New Testament heavenly Jerusalem and the New Testament tabernacle of God in both Luke 21:20 AND Matthew 24:15.

Jesus was not referring to the holy place of the temple of God in Luke 21:20.

Besides this, your question is as ridiculous as asking me how long before or how long after it was that Jesus spoke about Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, that He spoke about birth-pain signs of the end of the age, or about the sun and moon growing dark or about the five wise and the five foolish virgins.

It's a ridiculous question. No one except an eyewitness who was present on that day listening to Jesus would know at what point He spoke about armies gathering around Jerusalem. Do YOU know the answer to your own question?

LOL!!! The question doesn't even apply to my understanding of the text! It only applies to yours. You are the one saying Matthew 24:15-21 is not parallel to Luke 21:20-24, not me. Good grief. It's no wonder that you would not want to combine the accounts together to show how you can make sense of them. You know you can't do it. So, you came up with this lame excuse to get out of doing that.

But you make it obvious by such silly questions that you are unable to discern much.


That's once again a ridiculous argument. I'm not even sure it warrants the time taken to read it, let alone reply.

One passage is speaking about a city being surrounded by armies and Luke has Jesus specifically telling His disciples that when they see those armies gather around Jerusalem, they should know that the city's destruction is near.

The other passage has Jesus talking about a holy place, and an abomination standing in it.

Which means that by your ridiculous argument you are saying that the reason that Luke did not call Jerusalem the holy place in Luke 21:20 is because he was paraphrasing what Jesus said in Matthew 24:15,

- just because Luke's and Mark's records of the disciples' question are not word-for-word the same as Matthew's.

Ask God to give you understanding of His Word, and the ability to discern - but you have to be prepared to abandon your determination to believe what you want to believe regarding Matthew 24:15 and Luke 21:20 - because until now you have provided a LOT of evidence that what you believing regarding this is what you want to believe.

@TribulationSigns has a much better understanding of Matthew 24:9-31 than you do so instead of belittling his view and my view and @Davidpt;s view the way you have been doing, you should rather, after first praying to God for discernment, reconsider what you tell yourself about your level of discenment when it comes to this passage.

LOL at you when you complain about other people's posts being too long. And LOL at the idea of you trying to tell me that TribulationSigns and Davidpt have a better understanding than me of that passage (LOL) is going to convince me of anything. They both believe a lot of nonsense, so that claim means absolutely nothing to me. All this hot air coming from you means nothing. You are clearly GOING OUT OF YOUR WAY to deny the obvious, which is that Matthew 24-25, Mark 13 and Luke 21 are three separate accounts of the SAME Olivet Discourse and that Matthew 24:15-22, Mark 13:14-20 and Luke 21:20-24 are parallel passages.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Oh, really? Were you there? I don't think so.

You are right, I was not there in 70AD. Your point is?

LOL! Your comedy routine continues. Show me a picture of them.

Prove it then. Good luck.

You really ought to learn how to use Google. Try checking reliable historical, archaeological, and scholarly sources—ever heard of the Israel Antiquities Authority? Or the Temple Mount Sifting Project? Maybe crack open a copy of Biblical Archaeology Review, or look into peer-reviewed academic journals and findings from the City of David excavations.

There’s plenty of solid evidence out there showing that some stones are still sitting upon others. The fact that you’re unaware doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist—it just means you haven’t done your homework.

Your made up nonsense is far from exegesis.

I did not make it up. I quoted God's Word. You just do not like to hear it.

You can't fool me with that nonsense.

I do not have to. God is the one who made you a fool:

1Co 2:13-14
(13) Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
(14) But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

You can't even discern that Satan is a real fallen angel.

Oh, I see—we're dodging the original point now? Classic move.

Go ahead, show me exactly where it says Satan was created as an “angel” in the beginning. I’ll wait. Until then, spare us the whining about my take on Satan. Seems like this thread has already drifted far off course anyway—might want to start a fresh one if you're that eager to keep missing the point.

 

[covenantee]

@Spiritual Israelite

The Jewish Temple being destroyed does NOT make your point, since your point is that "this" fulfills prophecy. That's misleading, a red herring that distracts from the point--which is that the prophecy was "never" that the Jewish Temple would be destroyed. The prophecy was clearly that the Temple and the City would all be laid even with the ground, where not one stone would be left standing one upon another as the Temple, the city, and her children within her, are all thrown down. No one with any real knowledge (Scripture or otherwise) can claim that this literally happened in 70 AD!! If it did, there would have been no buildings in the city left, and so I've made my point.

2nd Timothy 3:16

• "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

Your point is found wanting because AD 70 just doesn't qualify as fulfillment of God's specific promises in the prophecy. The only way it would meet the God authored criteria is if that physical city was laid even with the ground where not one stone was left standing one upon another. That's not my words of qualification, it's God's Word. God is always very pointed and very specific with what He says. All through Scripture, when God says something will happen, it will happen just as He said it would. Not as people might re-imagine that it means, even though it doesn't say what they claim.

To disprove that you're espousing cultic gnosis psychosis, provide for us one example of a recognized exegete from post-apostolic historic true Christianity who agrees with your interpretations.

Complete with quotes, dates, and sources.

 

[TribulationSigns]

To disprove that you're espousing cultic gnosis psychosis, provide for us one example of a recognized exegete from post-apostolic historic true Christianity who agrees with your interpretations.

Complete with quotes, dates, and sources.

Ah, there it is—the classic “cultic gnosis psychosis” buzzword salad. You must have that phrase copy-pasted on standby by now. It's impressive how you managed to turn your refusal to examine Scripture on its own terms into a full-blown witch hunt for post-apostolic approval.

Let me guess: unless someone wears a powdered wig from the 2nd to 5th century and has a title like “Church Father,” their understanding of God's Word is invalid? That’s rich. Since when did the Word of God need a permission slip from man to be considered true?

You demand quotes, dates, and sources—not to test truth, but to avoid it. The Bereans were called noble for checking Scripture, not for obsessing over patristic name-dropping contests. If you're that dependent on historical footnotes to recognize truth, maybe the issue isn’t my interpretation… maybe it's your allergy to the actual Bible.

But hey, keep tossing out “cultic gnosis psychosis” like it’s some divine litmus test—it really helps everyone see how little you're engaging with what’s actually written in Scripture.

 

[covenantee]

There’s plenty of solid evidence out there showing that some stones are still sitting upon others. The fact that you’re unaware doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist—it just means you haven’t done your homework.

So they're stones from the temple, and they were sitting upon one another while part of the temple's superstructure in exactly the same way as they're shown sitting upon one another today?

Spare us the guffaws.

 

[Randy Kluth]

There were "LOTS" of stones left standing, one upon another after 70 AD. And many still left standing one upon another 2000 years later.

[/QUOTE]
In context, Jesus was speaking of the Temple. It is no coincidence that in history, at the end of Jesus' generation, the Romans obliterated the Temple buildings. The Wailing Wall is a retaining wall, and is not considered to be the buildings of the Temple worship.

And before you start rationalizing how those stones were not of the main Temple building like so many others, please pay careful attention that Christ spoke not only of the Temple, its buildings, but also of all the buildings of the ENTIRE Holy City Jerusalem.

Luke 19:41-44

• "And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
• Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
• For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
• And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation."

In context, the Jews in Jerusalem are hemmed in, as the Roman Army, ie the AoD, is aimed at destroyiingboth the city and the Temple. A simple comparison of the different versions of this Discourse indicates that the "obliteration" being mentioned took place on the Temple plaza.

Now, logically speaking, "IF" Christ was really addressing the physical stones of the Temple and the physical Holy City Jerusalem, then it is ridiculous to say 70 AD qualifies since we all know that many many stones are left standing one upon another to this very day 2000+ years later, and I bet that you DENIED it. Not surprised. And "hyperbole" is just a word used when YOU doesn't like exactly what Christ said. He was very specific, not one stone left standing one upon another. The "ONLY" Holy City and Temple that could meet that criteria is the corporate congregation of the nation of Israel. Not the Physical building, but as they were the building of God to whom pertained the Covenants before the cross. Are you in denial that the Jews as the body of Christ were builders who rejected Christ?

Historical commentators view the desolation of Jerusalem and its temple to have been fulfilled in 70 AD. This includes the vast majority of Church Fathers.

Look, I know there are a ton of Amillennialist, Postmillennialist, and Preterist theologians cling to this theory of the Temple falling. It's the "easy" thing to believe since the Jewish Temple was indeed destroyed. So it's easy for theologians to ignore or justify the fact that it doesn't "actually" fit with all the requirements of the actual text of prophecy. To cover this they say things like Christ was speaking in hyperbole, or it was actually exaggerated for effect, or it wasn't literally meant that not one stone would be left standing. However, isn't that their whole point--that it was "literally" fulfilled in 70 AD? To be honest, it's a product of sloppy exegesis, or often even eisegesis!

I'm not an Amillennialist, a Postmillennialist, nor a Preterist. The early Church Fathers felt that Jesus was speaking in his Olivet Discourse of the destruction of Jerusalem, including the obliteration of the temple buildings.

They were not "Preterists," since that school had not even come into existence yet. And that position is extreme, thinking that most all prophecies in the Bible were fulfilled in the past, including the prophecy of Antichrist, the prophecy of Israel's restoration, and the prophecies of the book of Revelation.

I'm a postribulationist, premillennialist who agrees with certain elements that Dispensationalists and Preterists believe in, namely that Jesus focused in his Olivet Discourse upon the destruction of Jerusalem in his generation, followed by a long age of Jewish punishment. The end of Jewish religion became official at that point--not just the tearing of the veil, but also the ending of the Temple itself. It was the beginning of a Diapora form of Jewish Worship, named perhaps Rabbinic Judaism.

 

[covenantee]

Ah, there it is—the classic “cultic gnosis psychosis” buzzword salad. You must have that phrase copy-pasted on standby by now. It's impressive how you managed to turn your refusal to examine Scripture on its own terms into a full-blown witch hunt for post-apostolic approval.

Let me guess: unless someone wears a powdered wig from the 2nd to 5th century and has a title like “Church Father,” their understanding of God's Word is invalid? That’s rich. Since when did the Word of God need a permission slip from man to be considered true?

You demand quotes, dates, and sources—not to test truth, but to avoid it. The Bereans were called noble for checking Scripture, not for obsessing over patristic name-dropping contests. If you're that dependent on historical footnotes to recognize truth, maybe the issue isn’t my interpretation… maybe it's your allergy to the actual Bible.

But hey, keep tossing out “cultic gnosis psychosis” like it’s some divine litmus test—it really helps everyone see how little you're engaging with what’s actually written in Scripture.

Thanks for your confirmations of trademark classic cultic gnosis psychosis.

You and only you are pure truth.

Where can we come to worship?

 

[TribulationSigns]

Thanks for your confirmations of trademark classic cultic gnosis psychosis.

You and only you are pure truth.

Where can we come to worship?

Wow, what a stunning display of originality—“cultic gnosis psychosis” again? You really should trademark that phrase since you throw it around like confetti anytime someone dares to think outside your theological echo chamber.


And thank you for the sarcastic altar call. But no worries, I don’t need followers, incense, or a fan club. Unlike some, I’m not out here preaching my own ego dressed in robes of tradition—I’m just pointing people back to the Scriptures you keep dodging.

 

[covenantee]

Wow, what a stunning display of originality—“cultic gnosis psychosis” again? You really should trademark that phrase since you throw it around like confetti anytime someone dares to think outside your theological echo chamber.


And thank you for the sarcastic altar call. But no worries, I don’t need followers, incense, or a fan club. Unlike some, I’m not out here preaching my own ego dressed in robes of tradition—I’m just pointing people back to the Scriptures you keep dodging.

You missed "trademark". Trademark classic cultic gnosis psychosis.

So far you're the only one who disagrees with it.

 

[TribulationSigns]

So they're stones from the temple, and they were sitting upon one another while part of the temple's superstructure in exactly the same way as they're shown sitting upon one another today?

Spare us the guffaws.

Oh, I see — unless the stones are stacked exactly like a LEGO model of the Second Temple, complete with incense smoke and choir music, you're not buying it?

Yes, we get it — you're allergic to nuance. No one said the Temple is still standing in perfect condition like a Greco-Roman theme park. But pretending the presence of foundational or structural stones — some still in situ — means absolutely nothing, just to cling to your interpretation, is intellectual laziness at best.

Archaeologists, historians, and actual boots-on-the-ground experts acknowledge their significance — but sure, go ahead and scoff with “Spare us the guffaws” like you're auditioning for a satire column instead of engaging in real discussion.

When you're done laughing at facts, maybe look into them. They're not that hard to find… unless you’re only searching for validation, not truth.