Timing of the abomination of desolation

[Randy Kluth]

I have been congenial. You are the one suggesting some here are not "true Christians". You are the one not being congenial. I've never questioned that you are a true Christian, but I have questioned some of your theology which is ok to do.

Of course it's okay to question things, including someone's "Christianity," or even the quality of their Christianity. Paul did it on a number of occasions. He ran into proud people, argumentative people, uncooperative people, and even hostile people who were members of the faith, and probably even true Christians.

Sometimes, however, Paul called them false Christians. So I don't see anything I've said here as unbiblical or wrong in spirit. I see a lot of hostility from so-called fellow Christians, and I don't know them from Adam. So they could be Mormons, JWs, or any brand of Christian that could make them legalistic, ultra-tolerant, or sectarian.

I haven't specifically branded you a false Christian, although I have to admit--you aren't always congenial, like you claim you are. But I appreciate the fact you think you are--that means your intent is to do so.

Many others who are also somewhat hostile don't even say they care to try, or they justify their judgmentalism, insults, and hostility as "God-directed" or "biblical." At least I recognize when I'm off the beaten path, and try to make it right. Take care...

 

[Randy Kluth]

Yes, this is true Futurism. All the Olivet Discourse events and related events in Revelation are all future. None have happened yet.

The other view is PF (Partial Futurism) as well as PP (Partial Preterism).

I will try this again, since you believe you are being "congenial" when you say this. You know that I've argued that most of the Olivet Discourse is not future, but fulfilled in 70 AD, and that this is a brand of Futurism. But you claim that "true Futurism" insists that *all* of the Olivet Discourse is future! How can that possibly be, and who really among Futurists really claim this?

I don't personally know anybody who holds to this extreme position, except for you. Likely there are others who at least wish to generalize this way. I'm not a Dispensationalist, but even Dispensationalists, of which there is a large number, believed, among some, that Luke 21's reference to Jerusalem being surrounded by armies was fulfilled in 66-70 AD. They think that the AoD is something else that is future, but they certainly don't believe that these endtime signs were not partly fulfilled in history even if they are predominantly evident at the end. And they are all called "futurists!"

And you know I've argued that Partial Preterism largely believes, with few exceptions, that the book of Revelation was fulfilled in history, in the Early Church. They believe Rome was the Antichrist. Though rare exceptions have PPs believe some thing remain future, most of them believe this way.

And yet you say all those who believe in the 70 AD fulfillment of the armies surrounding Jerusalem are Partial Preterists, even if they believe that a large portion of the book of Revelation is future and still be be fulfilled in an Antichrist. That's why you don't seem serious to me, because right after I explained this, you double down instead of investigate.

Perhaps you just don't care to investigate? Pretty much every body here has a brain, so I just don't understand you doubling down on something so obviously wrong?

I will say it again. Futurism believes that most of the Olivet Discourse and most of the Revelation is to be fulfilled in the future. Partial Preterism believes that most of the Olivet Discourse and most of the Revelation was fulfilled in the past.
But those like me who believe that most of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in the past, and most of the Revelation is to be fulfilled in the future, have a brand of futurism, and not a brand of Partial Preterism.

My system is a brand of futurism because I don't believe that most of these contested prophecies were fulfilled in the past, but will be fulfilled in the future, with the one exception of the AoD and its "birth pangs." And I also believe that prophecy continues to be fulfilled all through history, long after the Early Church.

That is, prophetic fulfillment never went away. That makes me a futurist. Preterists tend to deny the validity of prophecy anymore, and sound like Dispensationalists with respect to the gifts of the Spirit and prophecy.

 

[covenantee]

I will try this again, since you believe you are being "congenial" when you say this. You know that I've argued that most of the Olivet Discourse is not future, but fulfilled in 70 AD, and that this is a brand of Futurism. But you claim that "true Futurism" insists that *all* of the Olivet Discourse is future! How can that possibly be, and who really among Futurists really claim this?

I don't personally know anybody who holds to this extreme position, except for you. Likely there are others who at least wish to generalize this way. I'm not a Dispensationalist, but even Dispensationalists, of which there is a large number, believed, among some, that Luke 21's reference to Jerusalem being surrounded by armies was fulfilled in 66-70 AD. They think that the AoD is something else that is future, but they certainly don't believe that these endtime signs were not partly fulfilled in history even if they are predominantly evident at the end. And they are all called "futurists!"

And you know I've argued that Partial Preterism largely believes, with few exceptions, that the book of Revelation was fulfilled in history, in the Early Church. They believe Rome was the Antichrist. Though rare exceptions have PPs believe some thing remain future, most of them believe this way.

And yet you say all those who believe in the 70 AD fulfillment of the armies surrounding Jerusalem are Partial Preterists, even if they believe that a large portion of the book of Revelation is future and still be be fulfilled in an Antichrist. That's why you don't seem serious to me, because right after I explained this, you double down instead of investigate.

Perhaps you just don't care to investigate? Pretty much every body here has a brain, so I just don't understand you doubling down on something so obviously wrong?

I will say it again. Futurism believes that most of the Olivet Discourse and most of the Revelation is to be fulfilled in the future. Partial Preterism believes that most of the Olivet Discourse and most of the Revelation was fulfilled in the past.
But those like me who believe that most of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in the past, and most of the Revelation is to be fulfilled in the future, have a brand of futurism, and not a brand of Partial Preterism.

My system is a brand of futurism because I don't believe that most of these contested prophecies were fulfilled in the past, but will be fulfilled in the future, with the one exception of the AoD and its "birth pangs." And I also believe that prophecy continues to be fulfilled all through history, long after the Early Church.

That is, prophetic fulfillment never went away. That makes me a futurist. Preterists tend to deny the validity of prophecy anymore, and sound like Dispensationalists with respect to the gifts of the Spirit and prophecy.

In the entire history of the orthodox Christian Church prior to the 19th century, there is not one example of any recognized scholar or expositor who futurized the entirety of the Olivet discourse.

That distinction belongs to the interpretive extremism spawned in the dispensationalism of its godfathers Darby and Scofield, and all adherents and perpetuators since.

It is a modernist deception of unprecedented and unsurpassed success in defiling the Christian Church from within.

 

[ewq1938]

Perhaps you just don't care to investigate? Pretty much every body here has a brain, so I just don't understand you doubling down on something so obviously wrong?

That doesn't apply to mine. Yours has been debunked many times. So, take your own advice. Christ said one generation would see all the things described but you have decided that it will be two generations that see them, the first seeing most and the second seeing the rest with a huge amount of time inbetween. That is not what Christ taught.

 

[ewq1938]

Matthew 24:1 Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

You don't think the temple buildings standing at that time have been destroyed yet?

Jesus was at the temple when he spoke of that. The Olivet Discourse is when he was sitting on the mount teaching. The first 2 verses are not part of the Olivet Discourse.

 

[Randy Kluth]

In the entire history of the orthodox Christian Church prior to the 19th century, there is not one example of any recognized scholar or expositor who futurized the entirety of the Olivet discourse.

That distinction belongs to the interpretive extremism spawned in the dispensationalism of its godfathers Darby and Scofield, and all adherents and perpetuators since.

It is a modernist deception of unprecedented and unsurpassed success in defiling the Christian Church from within.

We may not agree on everything, but we certainly agree on this. Thank you very much!!

Of course, the thing we should immediately ask ourselves if we are futurists who think this way is: "Where did I get my position from?" And why would I hold to a view with no depth in history?

And why would God wait to reveal this only to only a limited section of Christianity in the Last Days? Wasn't revelation complete in the Early Church and in the Scriptures? I need not ask you for the answer!

 

[Randy Kluth]

That doesn't apply to mine. Yours has been debunked many times.

My view has *never* been debunked, unless you define "debunking" as simply rejecting my position? But opposing a view is not the same thing as "debunking" it!

Why are you unable to disprove my position? To just say you disagree with it isn't proving it wrong! To just count up all those Dispensationalists who don't wish to believe me doesn't mean they've "debunked" my position!

If you really wish to think you've "debunked" my position, find an argument that I don't have a biblical solution for. I've had a biblical answer for everything you've said, and you've not been able to answer the questions I ask about your own position. So who's been "debunked," brother?

As I said, you lack congeniality. You just "claim" things out of a spirit of opposition, out of a spirit of pride, not wanting to actually engage me on the issues. This isn't being cordial. It isn't even being honest. There's nothing "brotherly" about the way you deal with this subject that really matters to me.

So, take your own advice. Christ said one generation would see all the things described but you have decided that it will be two generations that see them, the first seeing most and the second seeing the rest with a huge amount of time inbetween. That is not what Christ taught.

Here is an example of where I disprove your position, and you will likely have no answer. And so, you will go on claiming I've been "debunked" simply because you say you reject my position and offer your own view.

Luke 21 indicates there is only *one* generation that will see the birth pangs leading up to the fall of the temple, with the fall of the temple being the main subject that Jesus is anticipating. So these are the things Jesus established that his generation would see before it has completely passed away...

They would see famines and earthquakes, showing God's displeasure with Israel at that time. Backslidden Israel would persecute true believers among the Jews. And God would provide, through the Jewish believers, a witness to Israel, warning them of the consequences of their sin.

This witness would not just be delivered to Israel before the temple would be destroyed, but this witness would begin to extend to all nations. And then the temple would fall.

Did these things actually happen or not? The Early Church Fathers said they did. Christian scholars throughout history have said they did. But you say this has been debunked?

Not only so, but Luke 21 says that when the temple is destroyed, and armies surround Jerusalem, the Jewish people will be sent out into all nations until the age actually comes to an end and Jesus returns. Did this actually happen, or are you going to say I've been "debunked" simply because you say, "No, this didn't happen," or "No, it doesn't say this?"

But the Early Church Fathers said it did happen. And Christian scholars throughout history said it did happen. Furthermore, history itself says it happened. But you likely will go on and count hands on your fellow Dispensationalists and Futurists who already agree with you, and claim that I've been "debunked," simply because there is a predominance of your opinion on a number of these less-than-scholarly forums.

 

[ewq1938]

My view has *never* been debunked, unless you define "debunking" as simply rejecting my position?

It has been debunked thoroughly. Your disagreement is invalid.

All who promote that "this generation" was in the first century always avoid the fact that the generation to see all those events would also see the actual second coming and gathering of the saints.

Mat 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
Mat 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
Mat 24:6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
Mat 24:7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
Mat 24:8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.
Mat 24:9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
Mat 24:10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
Mat 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
Mat 24:12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
Mat 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
Mat 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
Mat 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand: )
Mat 24:16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
Mat 24:17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
Mat 24:18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
Mat 24:19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
Mat 24:20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
Mat 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
Mat 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
Mat 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Mat 24:25 Behold, I have told you before.
Mat 24:26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
Mat 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Mat 24:28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
Mat 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

Immediately after the tribulation will the sun and moon go dark and the stars will fall from heaven, all being global events. Did that happen after the Roman's destroyed the city and temple? No.

Mat 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

All the tribes of the Earth mourning and seeing Christ coming from heaven to the Earth. Again, a global event. Did that happen in Ad70? No.

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

The gathering of the elect by angels in Ad70? No. The disciples would have been the elect of their generation and they certainly weren't gathered by angels. This is the same event known as the Rapture but it didn't happen in Ad70 and hasn't happened yet.

Mat 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
Mat 24:33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
Mat 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.


"all these things" includes verses 29-31 which shows the second coming and the gathering of the saints. Other scriptures tell us this timeframe is also the time when the dead in Christ are resurrected. Did either of those things take place in Ad70? No.

None of those things happened in the lives of the disciples proving he was NOT talking about their generation not passing before "all these things" occurred.

 

[Randy Kluth]

It has been debunked thoroughly. Your disagreement is invalid.

Again, you define "debunk" in an odd way. No, nobody has successfully debunked me. But you've become annoying by failing to respond to how I propose "debunk" should be defined.

It is not "opposing a position," but rather, successfully supplying objectively verifiable reasons for rejecting a position. You think that claiming something has been "debunked" again and again makes it true. All this shows is your obstinacy and lack of collegiality.

All who promote that "this generation" was in the first century always avoid the fact that the generation to see all those events would also see the actual second coming and gathering of the saints.

That clearly and objectively doesn't follow since *Christ made his Coming to follow a long Jewish exile *after* the events of his own generation!* In other words, "all these things" his generation would see had to do with things leading up to and including the fall of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD.

"all these things" includes verses 29-31 which shows the second coming and the gathering of the saints. Other scriptures tell us this timeframe is also the time when the dead in Christ are resurrected. Did either of those things take place in Ad70? No.

No, neither Christ's Return nor the Resurrection of the Just are said, biblically, to have anything to do with Jesus' generation. On the other hand, both Dan 9.26 and Matt 24 indicate that Jesus' generation would see the fall of Jerusalem and the temple. And this would lead to a long exile of the Jewish People, after which Christ returns and the Resurrection of the Just takes place.

I understand your position. Do you understand mine? I'm not just saying I believe these things despite Scripture, but I'm believing these things *because of Scripture!*

That is what it's saying. Language is a funny thing. You can read most anything you want into it. But it must be read with the sense of how the author intended his information to be read.

I accept you believe what you do without insult. Can you do the same with me? All I'm asking here is that you stop using pejorative labels when dealing with this subject.

I am not--truly not--a Partial Preterist. I believe biblical prophecy is still being fulfilled in the persecution of the saints, in the punishment of the Jewish People, in the preaching of the Gospel, and in the development towards the reign of Antichrist. I just believe, along with the Church Fathers, that Jesus' generation was to see the fall of the temple.

And that's *exactly* what Jesus said! That does *not* make me a Preterist of any kind. That makes me a believer in what Jesus said.

None of those things happened in the lives of the disciples..

None of *what* things didn't happen in the lives of the Disciples? They weren't persecuted? They didn't see false Christs and false prophets? They didn't experience earthquakes and famines? They didn't hear the rumblings of approaching warfare? Their generation did not see the fall of the temple?

All of these things happened, and the Disciples themselves witnessed most of them. Their generation certainly did witness the fall of the temple. I have no idea what you base your claim on?

You may claim that the AoD in Matthew and Mark referred to the Antichrist, which of course the Disciples did not see? But Luke unmistakably writes that Jesus' generation was to see armies surrounding Jerusalem and destroying the temple.

In fact all 3 synoptic Gospels, covering this Address, wrote that Jesus' Disciples themselves would see most of these signs, and that their generation would see the fall of the temple. I need not quote the line for you--you know it!

 

[Truth7t7]

I will try this again, since you believe you are being "congenial" when you say this. You know that I've argued that most of the Olivet Discourse is not future, but fulfilled in 70 AD, and that this is a brand of Futurism. But you claim that "true Futurism" insists that *all* of the Olivet Discourse is future! How can that possibly be, and who really among Futurists really claim this?

I don't personally know anybody who holds to this extreme position, except for you. Likely there are others who at least wish to generalize this way. I'm not a Dispensationalist, but even Dispensationalists, of which there is a large number, believed, among some, that Luke 21's reference to Jerusalem being surrounded by armies was fulfilled in 66-70 AD. They think that the AoD is something else that is future, but they certainly don't believe that these endtime signs were not partly fulfilled in history even if they are predominantly evident at the end. And they are all called "futurists!"

And you know I've argued that Partial Preterism largely believes, with few exceptions, that the book of Revelation was fulfilled in history, in the Early Church. They believe Rome was the Antichrist. Though rare exceptions have PPs believe some thing remain future, most of them believe this way.

And yet you say all those who believe in the 70 AD fulfillment of the armies surrounding Jerusalem are Partial Preterists, even if they believe that a large portion of the book of Revelation is future and still be be fulfilled in an Antichrist. That's why you don't seem serious to me, because right after I explained this, you double down instead of investigate.

Perhaps you just don't care to investigate? Pretty much every body here has a brain, so I just don't understand you doubling down on something so obviously wrong?

I will say it again. Futurism believes that most of the Olivet Discourse and most of the Revelation is to be fulfilled in the future. Partial Preterism believes that most of the Olivet Discourse and most of the Revelation was fulfilled in the past.
But those like me who believe that most of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in the past, and most of the Revelation is to be fulfilled in the future, have a brand of futurism, and not a brand of Partial Preterism.

My system is a brand of futurism because I don't believe that most of these contested prophecies were fulfilled in the past, but will be fulfilled in the future, with the one exception of the AoD and its "birth pangs." And I also believe that prophecy continues to be fulfilled all through history, long after the Early Church.

That is, prophetic fulfillment never went away. That makes me a futurist. Preterists tend to deny the validity of prophecy anymore, and sound like Dispensationalists with respect to the gifts of the Spirit and prophecy.

The Olivet discourse in Matthew chapter 24 is "Future", the entire chapter is dedicated to signs that precede the "Future" second coming

The literal, visible, second coming of Jesus Christ seen in Matthew 24:30-31 below is "Future" unfulfilled, and it wasn't fulfilled in 70AD Jerusalem

Matthew 24:30-31KJV
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

 

[covenantee]

The Olivet discourse in Matthew chapter 24 is "Future", the entire chapter is dedicated to signs that precede the "Future" second coming

The literal, visible, second coming of Jesus Christ seen in Matthew 24:30-31 below is "Future" unfulfilled, and it wasn't fulfilled in 70AD Jerusalem

Matthew 24:30-31KJV
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

It wasn't "future second coming" to the Judean Christians. They recognized the applicability of Jesus' warnings in Matthew 24:15-16 to their situation, acted upon them, and survived.

Thankfully, none of them was a dispensational futurist.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The Olivet discourse in Matthew chapter 24 is "Future", the entire chapter is dedicated to signs that precede the "Future" second coming

The literal, visible, second coming of Jesus Christ seen in Matthew 24:30-31 below is "Future" unfulfilled, and it wasn't fulfilled in 70AD Jerusalem

Matthew 24:30-31KJV
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

I agree that everything written in Matthew 24 and everything said in Matthew 24 *ultimately* has something to do with the 2nd Coming. But that's not the explicit reason Jesus brought this subject up.

He initially raised the issue of the temple being destroyed, and he was asked about it. So much of the Discourse is about that.

He was asked explicitly when it would take place, and he explicitly said "all these things will take place in this generation," referring to the birth pains leading up to and include the fall of the temple.

But Jesus was also asked about his coming into his Kingdom, and he was asked when this would happen, as well. And he explicitly separated his Coming in his Kingdom from the things to happen in his own generation by saying that his coming would follow a long period of Jewish exile, which would only begin in his generation. This clearly separated his coming from things to happen only in his own generation.

And he said it would happen at an undated time, meaning that no specific day will be given for it. We only know from him that he will come *after* the exile, or diaspora, of the Jewish People, meaning that it will take place long *after* the fall of the temple, and long after Jesus' generation.

Please prove any of these things wrong, if you wish to discuss. Otherwise, I'll just let you believe what you want to believe, and I can believe what I want to believe?

You'll get no hostility from me unless you deliberately wish to be rude. And if we're brothers, this shouldn't happen.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Jesus was at the temple when he spoke of that. The Olivet Discourse is when he was sitting on the mount teaching. The first 2 verses are not part of the Olivet Discourse.

Yes, but one of the questions He was asked related to the timing of the destruction of the temple buildings. Why do you ignore that?

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?

Notice that Jesus first refers to "the buildings of the temple" and asks "See ye not all these things?" before saying that they would be destroyed. Then on the mount of Olives the disciples asked Him "when shall these things be?". They were asking when shall these things, which were the temple buildings, be destroyed. So, where in the Olivet Discourse do you think He answered that question? It's not reasonable to think that He didn't answer it.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Yes, but one of the questions He was asked related to the timing of the destruction of the temple buildings. Why do you ignore that?

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?

Notice that Jesus first refers to "the buildings of the temple" and asks "See ye not all these things?" before saying that they would be destroyed. Then on the mount of Olives the disciples asked Him "when shall these things be?". They were asking when shall these things, which were the temple buildings, be destroyed. So, where in the Olivet Discourse do you think He answered that question? It's not reasonable to think that He didn't answer it.

I agree. I've been asking this forever, and there's never been a good answer. The obvious point is what you just made, that the Olivet Discourse started at the temple, and continued up the hill until they reached the top of the mountain.

I've been on this very trek, and it is not far at all, nor is the mountain high like I judge mountains. A mountain in Israel can be a mere hill! So a conversation that began at the temple and ended on top of the Mt. of Olives is not necessarily a long conversation, and it wouldn't be reasonable to suppose that each place has to be a different conversation with a different subject.

At any rate, your argument is the right argument for those who say otherwise, that the Mt. of Olives Discourse was different from the statements Jesus made at the temple. The same message was delivered, that the temple would be destroyed. And the questions Jesus' Disciples asked were in response to Jesus' statement that the temple would be destroyed.

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.”
3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately, 4 “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?”

Matt 24.1 Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”

Luke 21.1 As Jesus looked up, he saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. 5 Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, 6 “As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.”
7 “Teacher,” they asked, “when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?”

Luke has Jesus actually inside the temple area when the Disciples observed the beauty of the temple, with Jesus responding that the temple would be completely destroyed. According to Matthew and Mark, Jesus said the same thing as they were outside of the temple area, indicating that the conversation that began in the temple area continued outside of the temple area.

If you've ever been there, once you leave the temple you're in a valley, and the moment you leave the valley, which isn't very big, you are on the Mt. of Olives. So you could sit down right away and be sitting on the Mountain. Or, if you wanted to walk up to the top, it would not take very long, because the mountain isn't very big.

At any rate, the conversation that began in the temple, and continued outside of the temple, was immediately asked about by Jesus' Disciples. Luke blends the entire conversation together almost as if it took place in one general area. He makes no distinction between being outside of the temple area and being on the mountain.

Mark doesn't even make any distinction between questions about when the temple would be destroyed and questions about the "end of the age," or when Israel's troubles would come to an end.

 

[Keraz]

If you've ever been there, once you leave the temple you're in a valley, and the moment you leave the valley, which isn't very big, you are on the Mt. of Olives. So you could sit down right away and be sitting on the Mountain. Or, if you wanted to walk up to the top, it would not take very long, because the mountain isn't very big.

From one who has actually walked from Jerusalem City; down into the Kidron valley, thru the Garden of Gethsemane, up the Mt of Olives, past the tomb of the Prophets and onto the top, where the Church of the Ascension is; I can say; it takes at least 2 hours. It is steep going and my wife nearly didn't make it.
So I disagree that any conversation could be maintained for that time and distance.

He was asked explicitly when it would take place, and he explicitly said "all these things will take place in this generation," referring to the birth pains leading up to and include the fall of the temple.

This is your mistake. The Discourse from Matthew 24:3 onward, does not mention the Temple. Matthew 24:1-2 was fulfilled in 70 AD.
The Disciples asked Jesus about the signs of His Return, which comes at the end of this Christian age and all the rest of Matthew 24 describes those signs and His Return. Which will happen to those people alive when they see the things He described.
We have seen; the birth pangs, the wars, the famines and the earthquakes. The persecutions, the falling from the faith, the false prophesies, but whoever endures to the end shall be saved. Matthew 24:8-13
We await the end.....and it surely isn't too far off now.

 

[Randy Kluth]

From one who has actually walked from Jerusalem City; down into the Kidron valley, thru the Garden of Gethsemane, up the Mt of Olives, past the tomb of the Prophets and onto the top, where the Church of the Ascension is; I can say; it takes at least 2 hours. It is steep going and my wife nearly didn't make it.
So I disagree that any conversation could be maintained for that time and distance.

Well, I went there back in 1976, our American bicentennial year, so it was a ways back! However, I distinctly remember making the walk half way up the mountain, seeing camels rented out for a short ride, and then hearing a tourist guide (not mine) say a cemetery is at the top.

I didn't go all the way up, but I know I did this in short order. I was on my own, and spent a week in the vicinity of Jerusalem. I stayed just beyond the Damascus Gate at a wonderful little Youth Hostile, served up by delicious Arab stew!

Anyway, I must've been in and around Jerusalem a dozen times that week. Nothing was very far. I walked my last day in the morning all the way through modern Jerusalem to the train station with my bags. Nothing was very far for me then, because I was young and in my 20s.

I was in the Garden of Gethsemane, and at first I couldn't find someone to help me find a place to stay. I contemplated trying to stay in the Garden of Gethsemane at a monastery there, but was disallowed. I ultimately got things worked out.

But no, I don't recall any significant distance from the temple plaza to the Mt. of Olives. Online it says about half a mile. If it took your wife a great effort to make the journey, don't worry. My wife has trouble making it up hills now too, though in her heyday she was quite strong. So maybe it was more recent that you made the trip?

Anyway, I'm glad you went--what an experience! I could talk all day long about it. But your point is *not* being made at all!

This is your mistake. The Discourse from Matthew 24:3 onward, does not mention the Temple. Matthew 24:1-2 was fulfilled in 70 AD.

No, this is *not* my mistake! Jesus said the temple would be destroyed in his generation. And he was asked when this would happen? So Jesus, in answering the question, did *not* need to mention the temple when he was simply answering the question, "When?"

The answer is quite simple. There would be, in that generation, an assortment of signs showing the spiritual depravity of the Jewish People, and the cost of following Jesus by the Disciples.

And then the Abomination of Desolation, already explained in Daniel to have reference to the "city and the sanctuary," would be destroyed in that generation. Just a reference to Dan 9 makes it clear that Jesus was still answering the question, "When will the temple be destroyed?"

So, obviously, the AoD is the Roman Army that would destroy Jerusalem and the temple. And Luke made it clear this was the case when he said the generation of Jesus' Disciples would see armies surrounding Jerusalem.

 

[ewq1938]

Yes, but one of the questions He was asked related to the timing of the destruction of the temple buildings. Why do you ignore that?

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?

Notice that Jesus first refers to "the buildings of the temple" and asks "See ye not all these things?" before saying that they would be destroyed. Then on the mount of Olives the disciples asked Him "when shall these things be?". They were asking when shall these things, which were the temple buildings, be destroyed. So, where in the Olivet Discourse do you think He answered that question? It's not reasonable to think that He didn't answer it.

He didn't answer it. Go ahead and cite where he said when the temple building would be destroyed.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

He didn't answer it.

Why not?

Go ahead and cite where he said when the temple building would be destroyed.

In Matthew 24:15-22. It's also recorded in the parallel passages of Mark 13:14-20 and Luke 21:20-24.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

From one who has actually walked from Jerusalem City; down into the Kidron valley, thru the Garden of Gethsemane, up the Mt of Olives, past the tomb of the Prophets and onto the top, where the Church of the Ascension is; I can say; it takes at least 2 hours. It is steep going and my wife nearly didn't make it.
So I disagree that any conversation could be maintained for that time and distance.


This is your mistake. The Discourse from Matthew 24:3 onward, does not mention the Temple. Matthew 24:1-2 was fulfilled in 70 AD.
The Disciples asked Jesus about the signs of His Return, which comes at the end of this Christian age and all the rest of Matthew 24 describes those signs and His Return. Which will happen to those people alive when they see the things He described.
We have seen; the birth pangs, the wars, the famines and the earthquakes. The persecutions, the falling from the faith, the false prophesies, but whoever endures to the end shall be saved. Matthew 24:8-13
We await the end.....and it surely isn't too far off now.

Give me a break. This is complete nonsense. What do you think, that the disciples just came up to Him on the mount of Olives and just randomly asked Him questions about things that they hadn't previously discussed?

The first question they asked Him was "when will this happen?". When will what happen? That's clearly a question in reference to something that was previously talked about. What else could they have been asking about there except for the last thing He had talked to them about which was that the temple buildings would be destroyed?

 

[Truth7t7]

It wasn't "future second coming" to the Judean Christians. They recognized the applicability of Jesus' warnings in Matthew 24:15-16 to their situation, acted upon them, and survived.

Thankfully, none of them was a dispensational futurist.

The literal, visible, second coming of Jesus Christ seen in Matthew 24:30-31 below is "Future" unfulfilled, and it wasn't fulfilled in 70AD Jerusalem

Matthew 24:30-31KJV
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.