Timing of the abomination of desolation

[Dave Watchman]

Such a comparison is relatively meaningless. To compare the importance of one event in prophecy from another there is no need to say one event is more important than the other and that no other event could be referred to that is less important than the other!

How could you compare the importance of prophecy concerning Jesus coming into his Kingdom and Jesus dying on the cross, for example? How could you compare the prophecy of Jesus' atonement for our sins with prophecy that Babylon would destroy Jerusalem?

But the prophecy of the destruction of the "city and the sanctuary" in Dan 9.26 was very important, nevertheless, in Israel's history. It was the end of Jewish religion in the time that Messiah was cut off. That was very important both to the Jews and to the new universal Christian religion.

I wouldn't have even gone there.

It's not the importance that I am drawing attention too, heaven forbid, it's the difference between the two comings of Messiah. One takes place in a small part of the world, the other impacts the entire globe.

The middle third of Luke 21 is a local prophecy during the first coming of Messiah concerning "this people":

"There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.​

Matthew 24 is an apocalyptic prophecy that concerns everyone living in the whole world, every human being.

"For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved.​

It is pretty clear to me and to the historic commentators that much of the Olivet Discourse focuses on the fall of Jerusalem, even though some of it indeed refers to later in history and the Return of Christ. I would check your assumptions before drawing the conclusion that this cannot refer to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. To be honest, I don't see how any scholar could see it differently?

Can't you see how this is a violation of Jesus' own Word?

"At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.​

If you want to align yourself with "the historic commentators", the wise and learned, the early church fathers, and the popular "scholarly" view, that's fine.

If I thought it imperative for you to understand this, I'd write until I was blue in the face.

Read this:

Eschatology - Luke 21:5-38​

And this:

Eschatology - Luke 21:5-38​

Luke 21 was INSIDE the temple, Mathew 24 begins with Jesus LEAVING the temple and walking away at the end of that day.

Gifts Dedicated to God

I didn't mention this in the above two posts, but when you are looking a a temple stone, it can either be viewed from the outside looking at the outer surface, or the inside looking at the inner surface.

Simple right?

Luke 21:

"Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God.​

Where in the temple would we expect to find the "gifts dedicated to God"?

Outside the temple wall, or inside the temple wall?

Like in 2 Chronicles 3 where Solomon:

"He overlaid the inside with pure gold. He paneled the main hall with juniper and covered it with fine gold and decorated it with palm tree and chain designs. He adorned the temple with precious stones. And the gold he used was gold of Parvaim. He overlaid the ceiling beams, doorframes, walls and doors of the temple with gold, and he carved cherubim on the walls.​

And like Asa in 1 Kings 15, the sacred gifts are found inside, into the house of the Lord:

"Nevertheless, the heart of Asa was wholly true to the Lord all his days. And he brought into the house of the Lord the sacred gifts of his father and his own sacred gifts, silver, and gold, and vessels.​

When Jesus was "leaving the temple" and walking away at the start of Mathew 24, they could not see the adornment of beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. When they were leaving, they were looking at the outer structure.

I know you don't want to hear it, But Luke 21 is not the Olivet Discourse. I had the advantage of finding the empirical first, and then reverse engineering the rest. Still, it shouldn't be too hard for one to nuance the meaning out of the Script.

Luke 21 was inside the temple, the morning and the day OF the Olivet Discourse, which would happen late in the day, in the evening in front of only 4 people.

"For at night He lodged on the Mount called Olivet.​

Matthew 24 is not about the destruction of Jerusalem, it pertains to our modern era, and to the end of the world when every wall will fall.

"The fish of the sea and the birds of the heavens and the beasts of the field and all creeping things that creep on the ground, and all the people who are on the face of the earth, shall quake at my presence. And the mountains shall be thrown down, and the cliffs shall fall, and every wall shall tumble to the ground.​

There shall not be left here (on planet earth), one stone upon another that shall not be cast down to the ground.

Peaceful Sabbath.

 

[covenantee]

Matthew 24 is an apocalyptic prophecy that concerns everyone living in the whole world, every human being.

Did Jesus' disciples believe that they were included in; or excluded from; Jesus' words in Matthew 24:9-12 et al?

Ralph Woodrow, Great Prophecies of the Bible

PERSECUTION AGAINST THE DISCIPLES

Matthew: "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. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.., And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold" (24:9-12).

Mark: "They shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten; and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony.., whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak but the Holy Ghost... And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake" (13:9-13).

Luke: "They shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake. And it shall turn to you for a testimony...I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist...and some of you shall they cause to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake" (21:12-17).

The book of Acts gives a complete account of how the disciples were persecuted in the very ways Jesus had predicted. Let us take, for example, Acts 4: "And they laid hands on them [Peter and John], and put them in prison" (verse 3). They were brought before "rulers" (verses 5-7). And it turned into an opportunity to testify. Peter explained that "there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (verse 12). They were given a mouth of wisdom which their adversaries could not gainsay, for the men of the council "marveled" (verse 13). They were then commanded "not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus" (verse 18). As Jesus had said, they were hated for His name's sake.

The same things are seen in Acts 5. Certain authorities "laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in the common prison" (verse 18). Later they were brought "before the council" (verse 27) and told to answer for continuing to teach in the name of Jesus (verse 28). Again they had opportunity to testify (verses 29-32). They were "beaten" (verse 40). As they departed from the "council", they rejoiced "that they were counted worthy to suffer for his name"(verse 41).

Or take Acts 6. There arose certain ones of the "synagogue" that disputed with Stephen. "And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spoke" (verses 9,10). Persecution resulted and he was brought into the "council " and questioned (verse 12). Again there was the opportunity to testify, the words of that testimony being given in Acts 7. Stephen was killed for his stand (verses 54-60). Jesus had said that some of them would be killed.

Notice Acts 8. "There was a great persecution against the church." Christians were put in "prison", but the result was that the word was preached (verses 1-4).

In Acts 16, Paul and Silas were beaten and cast into "prison." But it turned into an opportunity to testify and the Philippian jailor and his family were converted as a result (verses 22-34). In Acts 21, persecution resulted in Paul being beaten, brought before rulers, before whom he testified (Acts 22). In Acts 22:19 we read that Christians were "imprisoned and beat in every Synagogue."

In Acts 24, Paul was brought before Felix, the governor, and testified. He was given a mouth of wisdom which his adversaries could not gainsay—though they obtained an orator to speak against him. Paul's words even made Felix to "tremble." In Acts 25 and 26, Paul was brought before king Agrippa, the chief captains, and the principal men of the city. He was given a mouth of wisdom, for Agrippa said to Paul, "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian" (verse 28).

Jesus said the disciples would be afflicted, beaten, imprisoned; they would be hated for his name's sake and some would be killed; they would be brought before councils, rulers, and kings, for a testimony; they would be given a mouth of wisdom which their adversaries could not gainsay. Surely these things came to pass in those years—unmistakably fulfilled in every detail.

"And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many ...but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved" (Mt. 24:11,13). Peter, who was present when Jesus gave this prophecy (Mk. 13:3), later wrote about "false prophets" that had risen and of "many" that followed their pernicious ways (2 Peter 2). John, who also heard Jesus give this prophecy, recorded the fulfillment: "Many false prophets are gone out into the world" (l John 4:1). "Many deceivers are entered into the world" (2 John 7).

Paul also spoke of "false apostles, deceitful workers" (2 Cor. 11:13). He mentioned Hymenaeus and Philetus who taught false doctrines and overthrew the faith of some (2 Tim. 2:17, 18). By the time of his epistle to Titus, there were "many...deceivers ...who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not" (Titus 1:10, 11).

The waters of truth were muddied by betrayals, false prophets, iniquity, and the love of many waxing cold.

 

[Dave Watchman]

Did Jesus' disciples believe that they were included in; or excluded from; Jesus' words in Matthew 24:9-12

Not if they thought the persecution that Jesus was talking about in Mathew 24 came after WW1 and WW2.

The persecution in Luke 21 WAS for them, as it happens "but before all this", before the “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.

It's not too hard to read, kind of like a Hebrew Couplet.

One is the first coming, the other is the second coming.

Even though they are different events, they are both answers to the same question, what will be the sign of your coming?

Peaceful Sabbath.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I wouldn't have even gone there.

It's not the importance that I am drawing attention too, heaven forbid, it's the difference between the two comings of Messiah. One takes place in a small part of the world, the other impacts the entire globe.

The middle third of Luke 21 is a local prophecy during the first coming of Messiah concerning "this people":

"There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.​

Matthew 24 is an apocalyptic prophecy that concerns everyone living in the whole world, every human being.

"For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved.​

Can't you see how this is a violation of Jesus' own Word?

"At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.​

If you want to align yourself with "the historic commentators", the wise and learned, the early church fathers, and the popular "scholarly" view, that's fine.

If I thought it imperative for you to understand this, I'd write until I was blue in the face.

Read this:

Eschatology - Luke 21:5-38​

And this:

Eschatology - Luke 21:5-38​

Luke 21 was INSIDE the temple, Mathew 24 begins with Jesus LEAVING the temple and walking away at the end of that day.

Gifts Dedicated to God

I didn't mention this in the above two posts, but when you are looking a a temple stone, it can either be viewed from the outside looking at the outer surface, or the inside looking at the inner surface.

Simple right?

Luke 21:

"Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God.​

Where in the temple would we expect to find the "gifts dedicated to God"?

Outside the temple wall, or inside the temple wall?

Like in 2 Chronicles 3 where Solomon:

"He overlaid the inside with pure gold. He paneled the main hall with juniper and covered it with fine gold and decorated it with palm tree and chain designs. He adorned the temple with precious stones. And the gold he used was gold of Parvaim. He overlaid the ceiling beams, doorframes, walls and doors of the temple with gold, and he carved cherubim on the walls.​

And like Asa in 1 Kings 15, the sacred gifts are found inside, into the house of the Lord:

"Nevertheless, the heart of Asa was wholly true to the Lord all his days. And he brought into the house of the Lord the sacred gifts of his father and his own sacred gifts, silver, and gold, and vessels.​

When Jesus was "leaving the temple" and walking away at the start of Mathew 24, they could not see the adornment of beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. When they were leaving, they were looking at the outer structure.

I know you don't want to hear it, But Luke 21 is not the Olivet Discourse. I had the advantage of finding the empirical first, and then reverse engineering the rest. Still, it shouldn't be too hard for one to nuance the meaning out of the Script.

Luke 21 was inside the temple, the morning and the day OF the Olivet Discourse, which would happen late in the day, in the evening in front of only 4 people.

"For at night He lodged on the Mount called Olivet.​

Matthew 24 is not about the destruction of Jerusalem, it pertains to our modern era, and to the end of the world when every wall will fall.

"The fish of the sea and the birds of the heavens and the beasts of the field and all creeping things that creep on the ground, and all the people who are on the face of the earth, shall quake at my presence. And the mountains shall be thrown down, and the cliffs shall fall, and every wall shall tumble to the ground.​

There shall not be left here (on planet earth), one stone upon another that shall not be cast down to the ground.

Peaceful Sabbath.

You too. My approach to this is, the simpler, the better. My problem in understanding all 3 versions of the Olivet Discourse has been in avoiding all of the "noise" from a variety of modern interpretations. If you stand back from all of the "chatter," and consider the commentaries in history on these 3 versions, you will find they say the same things, and therefore, must be different versions of the same Discourse.

We all agree the discussion began in the temple area, starting inside the walls, and extending in a walk beyond the walls. And it continued, I think, in the same vein up the side of the mountain. In the course of less than an hour a very important world-shaking event was being discussed.

As you said, there was conversation about the local people, the Jews, and what would happen to them. This is pointed out most clearly in Luke. But the idea that the other versions discussed more "apocalyptic," world-ranging events is not something that is visible to me. It must be "read into" the text because all 3 versions say essentially the same thing.

There is utterly no basis for finding Matthew and Mark's version different from Luke's versions except that Luke used other words to describe the same thing. Whereas Matthew and Mark referred to the AoD of Dan 9.27, Luke described armies surrounding Jerusalem--both the same event, in my estimation.

Whether gifts were seen inside the temple or outside is not an important issue to me. We are only given a cursory superficial view of what happened, with the emphasis being on what would happen to Jerusalem, and to the temple, in that generation.

But thanks for sharing. God will work this out with those of us who pray sincerely for His truth--not our truth. Happy rest in Christ's atonement! :)

 

[covenantee]

Not if they thought the persecution that Jesus was talking about in Mathew 24 came after WW1 and WW2.

The persecution in Luke 21 WAS for them, as it happens "but before all this", before the “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.

It's not too hard to read, kind of like a Hebrew Couplet.

One is the first coming, the other is the second coming.

Even though they are different events, they are both answers to the same question, what will be the sign of your coming?

Peaceful Sabbath.

There's no reference to a "coming" in Matthew 24:9-12.

Jesus' words therein to His disciples were fulfilled historically in the persecutions and other conditions which they experienced, as described in the cited Scriptures.

 

[ewq1938]

I can't argue this point--I just interpret it the way it makes sense to me. The desolation of Jerusalem involves its complete desolation, and part of that desolation is the removal of every stone of the temple buildings in order to seal the end of Jewish temple worship. What makes it compelling to me that Jesus was referring to 70 AD was not just the matter of which buildings were flattened, but also, the point that it had to take place in Jesus' generation.

"This generation will not pass away unless all these things happen first..." (paraphrased)

All those things did not happen, and the city was not torn down to ground level as Christ said it would be someday. The events of 70 AD do not match the prophecies.

 

[Randy Kluth]

All those things did not happen, and the city was not torn down to ground level as Christ said it would be someday. The events of 70 AD do not match the prophecies.

"All those things" is a phrase designed by Jesus to focus on things leading up to the fall of Jerusalem. That was the context of Jesus' statement. Nobody should say that "all these things" necessarily includes everything Jesus mentioned in this Discourse unless that it what he is actually saying or implying. As it is, Jesus was limiting "all these things" to specific things that were to lead up to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

What were the "birth pangs" that were to lead up to the fall of Jerusalem? Jewish apostasy would characterize this time period, because it was Jewish sin that would lead to the judgment of 70 AD. Not only would Jews present deceptions to their fellow Jews, but they would persecute Jewish believers in Jesus. This would lead to natural disasters, showing divine displeasure with the Jewish People, who largely rejected Jesus as Messiah. All *these* things would take place in "this generation."

Jesus' Coming was not part of the things leading up to the fall of Jerusalem, and so was not included with "all these things" that must happen in that generation. Jesus placed his Coming at a point beyond the punishment of the Jews and thus beyond his own generation.

Therefore, Jesus explicitly placed his Coming *after* his generation and at the end of the age, indicating that his Return was not one of the things to happen in his generation. It is therefore an event *logically excluded* from "all these things" to happen in Jesus' generation.

I will say it again. Jesus indicated his Coming would take place *long after the events of his own generation,* and so excluded that event from "all the things" that would happen in his own generation. The things that would happen in his own generation were the "birth pangs" leading up to the fall of Jerusalem.

The Return of Christ would take place at the end of the age, long after the fall of Jerusalem. The fall of Jerusalem would only begin an entire age of Jewish abandonment, a divine punishment, after which Christ will come to end this age by restoring the Jewish People.

Why then did Jesus mention "all these things" to happen in his generation right after referring to his Coming? It's because Christ's Coming is the logical end of the tribulations of the Jews which would only begin in his generation. And after mentioning his Coming as the end of all these things, he recaps what he had said earlier, namely the birth pangs, to indicate that they would all be fulfilled in his own generation, before the long-lasting punishment of the Jews, the worst in their history, and well before his Coming to end all of these things.

 

[ewq1938]

"All those things" is a phrase designed by Jesus to focus on things leading up to the fall of Jerusalem. That was the context of Jesus' statement. Nobody should say that "all these things" necessarily includes everything Jesus mentioned in this Discourse unless that it what he is actually saying or implying.

Obviously "all these things" does include everything Jesus mentioned. That is basic language comprehension. Not only that, he said "all these things" just after speaking of the second coming so that is part of what he said one generation would see. You have no leg to stand on here. You are defending your beliefs and rejecting what the text plainly declares. That's always the wrong thing to do.

Christ said "all these things", you change it to "some of these things".

Christ spoke of one generation seeing those things, you change it to two generations.

Christ said the entire city would be leveled to the ground, you just ignore that?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Obviously "all these things" does include everything Jesus mentioned. That is basic language comprehension.

When Jesus mentioned his *main subject* was the fall of Jerusalem, and then was asked about it, the reader may understand the language to focus on events that lead up to that main event. Mention of another event that clearly is intended by the speaker to lie outside of this narrow focus is external to the matter.

In this case, Jesus mentions his Coming at the end of the age. Clearly, he is excluding his Coming from "all these things" that must precede the fall of Jerusalem!

Not only that, he said "all these things" just after speaking of the second coming so that is part of what he said one generation would see.

Apparently you didn't read my explanation for this very carefully? My point was that Jesus' initial response to the question was to give a list of things to happen before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. He called these "birth pangs."

And then he went on to describe how this will lead to a great punishment of the Jewish People, consisting of a long exile, ending with his Return with his Kingdom. And so, we have the whole time progression laid out initially, which is what the Disciples had been concerned with. How did the fall of Jerusalem in their time relate to the coming of the Kingdom?, which is essentially what I think they were asking Jesus.

But then, after mentioning how this all ends with his Coming he recaps the issues they need to understand. The things he listed as preceding the fall of Jerusalem would happen in their own time. In saying this, he was *not* saying his Coming would take place in the same time period, nor would it be included in "all these things" to take place in their generation.

Rather, he was just recapping the fact that one set of things would happen in their generation whereas his Coming would take place afterwards, after a long period of Jewish punishment. That is also "language comprehension," if you will recognize that he placed his Coming and the "birth pangs" in separate categories, related to the two questions they asked Jesus.

The problem here is that you do not see "all these things" as the answer to the 1st of 2 questions Jesus was asked. He was asked 1st about when Jerusalem would fall. And then he was asked, secondly, about when his Coming would take place.

The 1st question about when Jerusalem would fall is explained to consist of "all these things," namely the "birth pangs" listed as having to happen leading up to the fall of Jerusalem.

The Coming of Jesus clearly did not related to the 1st question because Jesus made that event to take place long after his own generation, after a long period of Jewish Diaspora. This was Jesus' answer to the 2nd question, When is your Coming?

The answer was that it would *not* take place in the present generation, but would follow the fall of Jerusalem, and take place at the end of the age.

So it doesn't matter what order in the discourse Jesus answers each question. You simply have to recognize which subject Jesus is answering to know how it applies! The "birth pangs" applies to "all these things" that must happen leading up to the fall of Jerusalem, the 1st question. The Coming of Jesus following a long age of Jewish Dispersion is the answer to the 2nd question. You are mixing up the 2 separate events into a single scenario, when Jesus clearly separated the answers to separate questions.

 

[ewq1938]

In this case, Jesus mentions his Coming at the end of the age. Clearly, he is excluding his Coming from "all these things"

That's obviously false:

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.
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.
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.
Mat 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

ALL THESE THINGS not SOME of these things.

Ask your brother what the word ALL means.

 

[Randy Kluth]

That's obviously false:

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.
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.
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.
Mat 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

ALL THESE THINGS not SOME of these things.

Ask your brother what the word ALL means.

It's a false argument. As I often say, words and clauses mean what they mean *in context.* And as I just pointed out to you, which you ignored, Jesus' Coming is placed well *after* the fall of Jerusalem. And since Jesus referred to *all* the things that were to lead up to the fall of Jerusalem, Jesus' Coming is obviously excluded from "all these things" to happen in "this generation."

At the very least you should acknowledge the argument. But instead, you just reassert your own belief, which I do understand. If you understand my argument in a reasonable way, you might even change your mind. After all, I'm not trying to win you to anything other than peace of mind that you're accepted the Bible the way it was meant to be understood.

I would add that my brother has an interest in the original languages. And this issue has more to do with *context,* and not with the meaning of the word *all.*

If you refuse to accept the core argument that Jesus was addressing the things that lead up to the fall of Jerusalem, you of course will not accept the conclusion I'm drawing. Jesus *knew* his Coming would not be included in those things, and in mentioning it clearly excluded that event from being one of them. On the contrary, he placed his Coming well *after* those things, *after* the Tribulations of Jewish Punishment in the current age, and *at* the end of the age.

In other words, Jesus consciously referred "all these things" to the 1st question about when the fall of Jerusalem would happen, and mentioned the answer to the 2nd question about when his Coming would happen separately. "All these things" would happen in "this generation." And his Coming would happen *at the end of the age.*

 

[covenantee]

It's a false argument. As I often say, words and clauses mean what they mean *in context.* And as I just pointed out to you, which you ignored, Jesus' Coming is placed well *after* the fall of Jerusalem. And since Jesus referred to *all* the things that were to lead up to the fall of Jerusalem, Jesus' Coming is obviously excluded from "all these things" to happen in "this generation."

At the very least you should acknowledge the argument. But instead, you just reassert your own belief, which I do understand. If you understand my argument in a reasonable way, you might even change your mind. After all, I'm not trying to win you to anything other than peace of mind that you're accepted the Bible the way it was meant to be understood.

I would add that my brother has an interest in the original languages. And this issue has more to do with *context,* and not with the meaning of the word *all.*

If you refuse to accept the core argument that Jesus was addressing the things that lead up to the fall of Jerusalem, you of course will not accept the conclusion I'm drawing. Jesus *knew* his Coming would not be included in those things, and in mentioning it clearly excluded that event from being one of them. On the contrary, he placed his Coming well *after* those things, *after* the Tribulations of Jewish Punishment in the current age, and *at* the end of the age.

In other words, Jesus consciously referred "all these things" to the 1st question about when the fall of Jerusalem would happen, and mentioned the answer to the 2nd question about when his Coming would happen separately. "All these things" would happen in "this generation." And his Coming would happen *at the end of the age.*

ewq1938 has me on ignore. But since he is absolutely fixated on the meaning of "all", he must not believe any of the following Scriptures, because "all men" unquestionably means "all men on earth".

Romans 12:17
Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.

1 Corinthians 10:33
Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

2 Corinthians 3:2
Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:

2 Corinthians 9:13
Whiles by the experiment of this ministration they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal distribution unto them, and unto all men;

2 Timothy 2:24
And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,

Titus 3:2
To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.

 

[ewq1938]

It's a false argument. As I often say, words and clauses mean what they mean *in context.* And as I just pointed out to you, which you ignored, Jesus' Coming is placed well *after* the fall of Jerusalem.

"all these things" refer to what he said while on the mount, not anything he said in the past. It is impossible to remove the second coming from "all these things". It's clear error to do so. It exposes the whole preterist inspired "most events were fulfilled in 70 AD" nonsense.

 

[Randy Kluth]

"all these things" refer to what he said while on the mount, not anything he said in the past. It is impossible to remove the second coming from "all these things". It's clear error to do so. It exposes the whole preterist inspired "most events were fulfilled in 70 AD" nonsense.

First off, I'm not a preterist. Secondly, Jesus' 2nd Coming could not have been included in "all these things" because "all these things" had to do with things leading up to the fall of Jerusalem, the "birth pangs."

That was the main subject--the fall of Jerusalem. Jesus' 2nd Coming comes well after that, and so was excluded from "all these things" to take place in the leadup to the fall of Jerusalem.

But you've been told this. I've not asked you to accept it, but only to understand it. Instead of showing you understand my argument, you just continue to argue against it with the same old arguments.

The fact is, you've done nothing but argue your position against mine. You've done nothing to delegitimize my argument if you look at it from my point of view. I trust you can look at a passage from another viewpoint?

 

[Randy Kluth]

ewq1938 has me on ignore. But since he is absolutely fixated on the meaning of "all", he must not believe any of the following Scriptures, because "all men" unquestionably means "all men on earth".

Romans 12:17
Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.

1 Corinthians 10:33
Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

2 Corinthians 3:2
Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:

2 Corinthians 9:13
Whiles by the experiment of this ministration they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal distribution unto them, and unto all men;

2 Timothy 2:24
And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,

Titus 3:2
To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.

I know. It's everything I can do to keep being civil. ;) I'm trying to treat every brother here with respect. I hate censorship.

 

[ewq1938]

First off, I'm not a preterist. Secondly, Jesus' 2nd Coming could not have been included in "all these things" because "all these things" had to do with things leading up to the fall of Jerusalem, the "birth pangs."

No, the Olivet Discourse is about the end times and does include the second coming. It's only 3 verses away from the "all these things".

That was the main subject--the fall of Jerusalem.

How can it be the main subject when he didn't mention that a single time in the Olivet Discourse? Can someone say the main subject was how to carve pumpkins?

Jesus' 2nd Coming comes well after that, and so was excluded from "all these things"

You have excluded it in your mind but it is included by Christ.

The fact is, you've done nothing but argue your position against mine.

Actually I have used the bible to argue that your position is wrong because it doesn't match what the text says.

You've done nothing to delegitimize my argument if you look at it from my point of view. I trust you can look at a passage from another viewpoint?

Your viewpoint ignores the text and creates it's own imaginary text that isn't biblical. All bad doctrines do that and it's easy to spot because it doesn't come from any part of the bible.

 

[Timtofly]

Maybe the internet does. Let us know if you find it.

You can't even spell "alleged". Even with a spell checker.

Perhaps you can argue with my spell checker then?

Did any of Jesus' Olivet predictions come true during the generation leading up to 70AD?

No.

What came true was the words at the temple itself. Do you include the teachings during the day at the temple part of what was said on the mountain itself?

Did the OD occur in the temple each day?

Why do you reject the possibility that what was said at the temple did deal with 70AD? At the same time what was said in private dealt with the actual Second Coming 1992 years later and counting?

Why is it so hard to separate the two locations?

 

[Timtofly]

LOL! Who are "we"? You and who else? It's obvious what "these things" are. Just read it.

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?

This is beyond obvious. If you can't discern what "these things" refer to here then you probably can't discern anything. First, the disciples showed Jesus "the buildings of the temple". Mark 13:1 and Luke 21:5 give the added details that they had been marveling at the temple buildings as far as how impressive looking they were and such. Immediately after that Jesus said "See ye not all these things"? What were the things that they had just been talking about? The temple buildings. So, "these things" were the temple buildings. Very simple. And Jesus said they would be completely destroyed. And they were.

So you agree some of this complex is still standing today, never overturned. All these things meant all these things. You claim all is not all, but a single structure. The outer temple buildings were directly on top of this wall. The wall is still part of all, not a separate entity unknown. The buildings were not floating in the air. They were held up and remained in place by something. That something being part of the "all".

 

[Timtofly]

I didn't say that He did. It just turned out that way as far as the destruction of the temple buildings was concerned, but He wasn't only asked about that. He was also asked about His coming and the end of the age which has not yet occurred.

Which reference to "these things" are you referring to? The one in Matthew 24:2-3 or the one in Matthew 24:34? I ask that because "these things" aren't the same in each verse. In verses 2-3, "these things" referred to the temple buildings. In verse 34 it referred to the things that Jesus had been talking about just prior to that verse, which included His coming at the end of the age and the gathering of the elect.

The answer to all these things in the destruction of a stone building would be all the stones.


The answer to all these things in the OD, would be the blooming of the fig tree, the Second Coming, a time of great trouble for Jacob, and perhaps a time of utter abomination and desolation. 4 events of important note.

Now tell me exactly the mind of the disciples. What "things" were on their mind? The words of Jesus, or some imagined eschatological bias from 2022AD? Did Jesus give them what they needed to hear, or what they thought they wanted to hear?

 

[Timtofly]

satan is the man of sin ,when he gets kicked out of Heaven he will be here on this earth ,with all his angels, he will appear as he is, one of the most beautiful angels God ever created

he pretends to be Christ ,that's the tribulation . The earth(humans) have never seen anything like it since Gen 6

Satan has been appearing as the man of sin for 2500 years. Who do you think taught the Greeks and Romans western science? The Greeks and Romans accepted this knowledge easier than Eve fell to Satan's deception. No one told the Greeks and Romans to beware of Satan. No one told them their science was wrong. Of course many humans have seen Satan. Thousands have lived and died during the last 2500 years. Do you think the Greeks and Romans would trust some one who did not appear to actually know what they were talking about?