is the future Antichrist unique?

[Douggg]

“And seal the book”——-With 7 SEALS!

Certainly the book that Jesus opened in Revelation sealed with 7 Seals - is about the time of the end.

 

[One God and Father of All]

Certainly the book that Jesus opened in Revelation sealed with 7 Seals - is about the time of the end.

all of the book of Revelation is yet future.

 

[Ed Parenteau]

and yet the Parable he gave said the fig tree would bring forth new leaves.
and both the old testament and new testament speak of the salvation of Israel, and Paul and John clarify that it will be a remnant of National Israel, not a replacement by gentiles. There's going to be a remnant that hear that prophet when He returns.

The following is in the context of verses 5 and 6 which are talking about the destruction of the temple. Do you believe the temple they were looking at was not destroyed in that generation? And is He not speaking to the apostles when He says "you"
Luke 21:29And He told them a parable: “Look at the fig tree and all the trees: 30as soon as they put forth leaves, you see for yourselves and know that summer is now near. 31So you too, when you see these things happening, recognize that the kingdom of God is near. 32Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all things take place. 33Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.

 

[RandyPNW]

but there's still prophecy to be fulfilled so the 70th week has not been fulfilled yet.

There are different interpretations of Daniel's 70th Week, and I see it not as a Preterist but more like that view, that it was largely fulfilled historically in the time of Christ and immediately following. I know the language sounds very eschatological, but nevertheless, Messiah appeared the 1st time with the same kind of language and description. He came to visit the earth with the Kingdom of God.

So we have to ask ourselves, when Jesus came the 1st time did he bring the Heavenly Kingdom to earth in the sense of beginning to reign here immediately? Or, did he just give the earth a foretaste of who he is and who he will be when he comes the 2nd time?

I believe the earth experienced the presence of the Kingdom of heaven in Jesus when he came the 1st time. But they did not yet experience the Kingdom of heaven established on earth. There is a difference.

Dan 9.24 talks about the coming of eternal righteousness, which is precisely what Jesus brought with him in his work on the cross. He made eternal righteousness available to all legally for those willing to embrace him as Messiah and Lord. But he did not yet allow those of us who received him to experience the fulness of that righteousness in terms of a complete deliverance from these bodies of sin.

So I think the 70 Weeks is talking about a period of time beginning with the Persian restoration of Israel and leading to the 1st Coming of Christ, who immediately showed us his divine righteousness, and gave that to us as a gift through the Holy Spirit. All this had to take place by his 1st being "cut off" at the cross. Later, the full display of righteousness in our lives will take place at his 2nd Coming, when we are raised and given new bodies.

 

[Jamdoc]

The following is in the context of verses 5 and 6 which are talking about the destruction of the temple. Do you believe the temple they were looking at was not destroyed in that generation? And is He not speaking to the apostles when He says "you"
Luke 21:29And He told them a parable: “Look at the fig tree and all the trees: 30as soon as they put forth leaves, you see for yourselves and know that summer is now near. 31So you too, when you see these things happening, recognize that the kingdom of God is near. 32Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all things take place. 33Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.

Cool.
Jesus didn't return.
and the fig tree had to wither (the destruction of the temple and the scattering of the Jews) before it could bring forth new leaves (the bringing back to Israel in unbelief), note Jesus didn't say it would bring forth fruit before He returns. Just leaves.

But any interpretation hinging on the 70th week of Daniel being around 70AD fails the ultimate test: Jesus didn't return from heaven, people still die, sin still exists. Jesus said ALL these things, not some of them, and so, that includes His return.
You have 2 ways to look at it.
1. Jesus is a charlatan phony and there is no salvation in him and there never was and never will be and we've believed in vain.
or
2. Your interpretation is wrong and 70AD was not the fulfillment.

I'm betting my entire life on #2.

 

[Jamdoc]

There are different interpretations of Daniel's 70th Week, and I see it not as a Preterist but more like that view, that it was largely fulfilled historically in the time of Christ and immediately following. I know the language sounds very eschatological, but nevertheless, Messiah appeared the 1st time with the same kind of language and description. He came to visit the earth with the Kingdom of God.

So we have to ask ourselves, when Jesus came the 1st time did he bring the Heavenly Kingdom to earth in the sense of beginning to reign here immediately? Or, did he just give the earth a foretaste of who he is and who he will be when he comes the 2nd time?

I believe the earth experienced the presence of the Kingdom of heaven in Jesus when he came the 1st time. But they did not yet experience the Kingdom of heaven established on earth. There is a difference.

Dan 9.24 talks about the coming of eternal righteousness, which is precisely what Jesus brought with him in his work on the cross. He made eternal righteousness available to all legally for those willing to embrace him as Messiah and Lord. But he did not yet allow those of us who received him to experience the fulness of that righteousness in terms of a complete deliverance from these bodies of sin.

So I think the 70 Weeks is talking about a period of time beginning with the Persian restoration of Israel and leading to the 1st Coming of Christ, who immediately showed us his divine righteousness, and gave that to us as a gift through the Holy Spirit. All this had to take place by his 1st being "cut off" at the cross. Later, the full display of righteousness in our lives will take place at his 2nd Coming, when we are raised and given new bodies.

"All these things"
includes

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:
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.

Did those things happen?
No.
so it was not that generation.
but rather the generation that witnesses the fig tree bringing forth new leaves.

 

[RandyPNW]

"All these things"
includes



Did those things happen?
No.
so it was not that generation.
but rather the generation that witnesses the fig tree bringing forth new leaves.

Well, there is an alternative but you likely aren't buying.

 

[Jamdoc]

Well, there is an alternative but you likely aren't buying.

Yeah I don't buy the "we'll just arbitrarily decide that 'all these things' actually means 'all these things except for my coming'" "alternative"

 

[RandyPNW]

Yeah I don't buy the "we'll just arbitrarily decide that 'all these things' actually means 'all these things except for my coming'" "alternative"

Right, I thought you'd characterize it that way. I feel the same about how you're framing the argument--completely irrational, in my honest assessment. The generation Jesus spoke of was his own, as I see it.

The 1st time I heard that argument from Hal Lindsey, I just accepted it unthinkingly. When I later began to examine it for myself, much more closely, I could not agree that this was any other generation than the one Jesus was directly referencing *in his own time.*

But you're welcome to view things the way you want. I reserve the right to characterize the argument my own way, as follows....

 

[RandyPNW]

Let me put this one to rest, from my own perspective. What does "all" mean? Does it mean "all" as in the entire universe, including God Himself? Or, does it mean what it directly implies?

Let me suggest that there will be a terrible storm. And let me suggest that the storm will destroy "everything" in its path. Since the word "everything" is used, does that mean the entire world will be destroyed? No, it just means that everything *in the path of the storm* will be destroyed.

So what if I say that in our generation there will be a number of terrible calamities, and that following this there will be a great recovery. And then I say that they, ie the calamities, will bring about total destruction. Does that mean that the recovery cannot happen because *everything* will be "totally destroyed?"

Of course not. It is specified that the calamities are bringing the destruction, implying that the recovery will follow the destruction. The "total destruction" is relative to the calamity event itself, and not to what follows it.

These are silly examples, but this is what's being done with the Olivet Discourse. Jesus said that a major calamity will befall his very own generation. Nobody at the time would question which generation this is because Jesus specifically mentioned that his own Disciples, standing there, will experience some of the effects.

Jesus is asked a 2nd question, related to the question about his own generation, but relegates that question to an entirely different category. Jesus says that the question being asked about his 2nd Coming refers to a later time, after a long Jewish exile.

And so he revisits the original question about his very own generation, and says, "All this will take place in this generation," meaning that the current calamity to befall his own generation would lead to a Jewish exile, to be followed by his 2nd Coming.

Jesus was saying that the things that would befall his own generation,, namely persecution of his apostles and disciples, earthquakes, the rise of armies, and ultimately, the Roman invasion of Jerusalem, would lead to the start of an age-long Jewish exile, to be followed by his Coming.

*All that is involved in the initial calamity leading to the capture of Jerusalem and to the exile of the Jewish People * will befall his own generation and precede his 2nd Coming. His 2nd Coming is *not* included in the things to take place in "this generation!" Obviously not!

And yet it is claimed that because Jesus also mentioned his 2nd Coming that that event must be included in *all* that Jesus said would take place in his own generation. Where on earth is common sense today among Christians?

Paul used the exact same argument to argue *against* the notion that Jesus' 2nd Coming could take place imminently or has already taken place! He said that trouble precedes the 2nd Coming, including antichristian apostasy in the world and the rise of Antichrist himself. Christ's 2nd Coming *follows* this long age of Jewish exile, and ends it. It cannot happen before that.

Clearly, in Paul's theology, Jesus could not have come in the 1st generation, which would see only the beginning of a long Jewish exile. Jesus' Coming was *not* to be included in "all" that would take place in Jesus' generation.

 

[Jamdoc]

Right, I thought you'd characterize it that way. I feel the same about how you're framing the argument--completely irrational, in my honest assessment. The generation Jesus spoke of was his own, as I see it.

The 1st time I heard that argument from Hal Lindsey, I just accepted it unthinkingly. When I later began to examine it for myself, much more closely, I could not agree that this was any other generation than the one Jesus was directly referencing *in his own time.*

But you're welcome to view things the way you want. I reserve the right to characterize the argument my own way, as follows....

Jesus included His second coming as coming immediately after the tribulation of those days, the days that He referred to coming so quickly after the Abomination of Desolation that people shouldn't even pack their bags, they should just flee.
If the great tribulation was 2000 years before His coming, then the words "immediately after" wouldn't be in the text.

there is just simply no room for a gap between the abomination of desolation to the great tribulation, and no room for a gap of thousands of years between the tribulation and the second coming.

There simply isn't room in the text for a 2000 year gap in the Olivet Discourse.
There is room for a gap in Daniel 9 between the 69th week and 70th week because "unto the end of the war desolations are determined."
There's a period of desolations, the scattering of Israel among the nations, that was prophecied, and Israel would be gathered BACK to a desolate land and make it bloom.

and context says the generation in question is the one that sees the fig tree bring forth new leaves. If you yank the parable of the fig tree OUT of Matthew 24, sure I can see how you would come to the conclusion that it's referring to the first century AD, and if you take Matthew 24:34 totally out of context, I could see how it could be mistakenly interpreted that way. But in context.. it's the generation that witnesses the fig tree come back to life after a period of desolation. Desolations that had not happened yet.
AND
you still have to contend with the fact that Jesus included His second coming IMMEDIATELY AFTER the events spoken of, it's included in "all these things" you can't force a separation. The words "immediately after" absolutely shoot that idea down.
Why people cling to that false notion is beyond me.
I can at least sympathize with Full Preterists WANTING Jesus to have come back in 70AD and allegorizing it all into nothingness They're flat out wrong because the world doesn't match what prophecy has said the New Earth would be like. But at least they're consistent in the application and understanding that there is no allowance for partial preterism's central dogma to exist: that the 70th week has been fulfilled and all that is left to be fulfilled is an out of the blue without warning sudden return of Jesus that just melts the entire earth in the blink of an eye and then we're all before the great white throne.

Like that's the only thing that keeps them "partial" preterists is still believing in a physical return of Jesus.
But they ignore "immediately after" and "all these things"
the position simply doesn't hold water.

 

[RandyPNW]

Jesus included His second coming as coming immediately after the tribulation of those days, the days that He referred to coming so quickly after the Abomination of Desolation that people shouldn't even pack their bags, they should just flee.
If the great tribulation was 2000 years before His coming, then the words "immediately after" wouldn't be in the text.

Well, I'm at least glad you're engaging me on the point! I have been studying this a long time, and am not new at your thoughts.

What is not always taught is what Jesus meant by the "great tribulation" associated with the Abomination of Desolation (AoD). In my era, where Dispensationalism has been dominant in the media and in the bookstores, the AoD has been viewed as the Antichrist, and the Great Tribulation associated with it has been viewed as a "7 year reign of Antichrist" in which God spends 7 years punishing the ungodly world with His "Wrath." I have no idea why it would take God 7 years to visit His wrath upon the world??

But in reality Jesus defined this "Great Tribulation" quite differently, and I never get tired in pointing it out. Despite my being factual on this, I'm regularly ignored, perhaps out of the ingrained thinking on this subject?

Jesus clearly defined the Great Tribulation as an *age-long period of Jewish punishment,* otherwise known as the Jewish Diaspora of the NT era. This is *beyond debate!!* Nevertheless, I'm regularly ignored even though Luke 21 sends out this message far more clearly than I could ever hope to.

Luke 21.20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 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.

Do you see these 3 things?
1) Great Distress = Wrath against this People
2) Great Distress/Wrath against this People = exile to all the Nations
3) The Great Distress/Wrath against this People begins with the trampling of Jerusalem by the Romans and ends when the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

This is the Jewish Diaspora, which began in 70 AD with the defeat of Jerusalem by the Romans. The Jews were exiled into all nations and have continued to be diminished as such until the present day. They will be delivered when the time of Gentile oppression of the Jews comes to an end, which is at the Coming of the Son of Man from heaven (not from a pseudo-Messiah on earth).

Desolations that had not happened yet.

The Abomination of Desolation committed by the Roman Army was made comparable by Daniel to the Abomination of Desolation associated with Antiochus 4. In both cases, Jewish worship was suppressed and mass number of Jews were murdered. The "desolation" was the destruction of the Jewish People. And the "abomination" was the fact these atrocities were committed by pagans in holy territory.

This is not my "novel interpretation!" This was the view of the Church Fathers, and the view of many Christian scholars in history. They saw an absolute link between the 70th Week of Daniel and the death of Christ, followed by the AoD, which was viewed as the Roman Army.

In fact, in Dan 9.26-27 it is obvious that this is an Army spoken of that will destroy the "city and the sanctuary."

Dan 9.26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary....

the position simply doesn't hold water.

My position doesn't "hold water" because you're not seeing my position correctly. Please give it the attention it deserves. Yes, if you look at it your way, my way makes no sense at all.

 

[Jamdoc]

Well, I'm at least glad you're engaging me on the point! I have been studying this a long time, and am not new at your thoughts.

What is not always taught is what Jesus meant by the "great tribulation" associated with the Abomination of Desolation (AoD). In my era, where Dispensationalism has been dominant in the media and in the bookstores, the AoD has been viewed as the Antichrist, and the Great Tribulation associated with it has been viewed as a "7 year reign of Antichrist" in which God spends 7 years punishing the ungodly world with His "Wrath." I have no idea why it would take God 7 years to visit His wrath upon the world??

Dispies don't grasp the difference between the wrath of God, and tribulation. Tribulation is religious persecution. The greatest test of faith.

the Holocaust and ISIS were tiny pictures of it.
Great Tribulation is those things, but world wide, and turned to 11
God restrained it, the world once accepted Christianity, but now, it only begrudgingly tolerates it, if not rebels against it During Great Tribulation, they will openly be at war with it.... hated by ALL nations, not just one nation, Rome.

But in reality Jesus defined this "Great Tribulation" quite differently, and I never get tired in pointing it out. Despite my being factual on this, I'm regularly ignored, perhaps out of the ingrained thinking on this subject?

Jesus clearly defined the Great Tribulation as an *age-long period of Jewish punishment,* otherwise known as the Jewish Diaspora of the NT era. This is *beyond debate!!* Nevertheless, I'm regularly ignored even though Luke 21 sends out this message far more clearly than I could ever hope to.

Luke 21.20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 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.

Do you see these 3 things?
1) Great Distress = Wrath against this People
2) Great Distress/Wrath against this People = exile to all the Nations
3) The Great Distress/Wrath against this People begins with the trampling of Jerusalem by the Romans and ends when the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

This is the Jewish Diaspora, which began in 70 AD with the defeat of Jerusalem by the Romans. The Jews were exiled into all nations and have continued to be diminished as such until the present day. They will be delivered when the time of Gentile oppression of the Jews comes to an end, which is at the Coming of the Son of Man from heaven (not from a pseudo-Messiah on earth).



The Abomination of Desolation committed by the Roman Army was made comparable by Daniel to the Abomination of Desolation associated with Antiochus 4. In both cases, Jewish worship was suppressed and mass number of Jews were murdered. The "desolation" was the destruction of the Jewish People. And the "abomination" was the fact these atrocities were committed by pagans in holy territory.

This is not my "novel interpretation!" This was the view of the Church Fathers, and the view of many Christian scholars in history. They saw an absolute link between the 70th Week of Daniel and the death of Christ, followed by the AoD, which was viewed as the Roman Army.

In fact, in Dan 9.26-27 it is obvious that this is an Army spoken of that will destroy the "city and the sanctuary."

Dan 9.26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary....

My position doesn't "hold water" because you're not seeing my position correctly. Please give it the attention it deserves. Yes, if you look at it your way, my way makes no sense at all.

70AD was the withering, not the regathering.

 

[RandyPNW]

Dispies don't grasp the difference between the wrath of God, and tribulation. Tribulation is religious persecution. The greatest test of faith.

the Holocaust and ISIS were tiny pictures of it.
Great Tribulation is those things, but world wide, and turned to 11
God restrained it, the world once accepted Christianity, but now, it only begrudgingly tolerates it, if not rebels against it During Great Tribulation, they will openly be at war with it.... hated by ALL nations, not just one nation, Rome.


70AD was the withering, not the regathering.

My point was that the "Great Tribulation," as defined by Jesus, began with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and consisted of an entire age of Jewish cursing, aka the Jewish Diaspora. During this era, the Jews turned against and persecuted Christians among their numbers, and joined pagan Gentiles in showing hostility to Christians.

This was the reason for the curse God has been visiting upon the Jewish People, who largely reject the basis of their covenant with God. That basis is Jesus Christ, who came to end the curse of the Law, fulfilling it in the blessing of eternal life.

Many Christians read the Olivet Discourse and overly Christianize its meaning, failing to see that Jesus was giving prophecy to the Jewish People. Jesus, in this ministry, was still ministering under the Old Covenant to the Jewish People. However, this prophecy takes the Jews and us into the NT era, where "great tribulation" becomes our sometimes experience, as both Jews and pagan Gentiles show hostility towards us.

Thus, this "Great Tribulation" is defined by Jesus as both the punishment of the Jewish people and a time of suffering by Christians. We need to keep this in mind. The "Great Tribulation" is *not* just the 70 AD event of the fall of Jerusalem. That was just the start of Jewish cursing.

Nor was this "Great Tribulation" purely the suffering of Christians, in particular during the reign of Antichrist. There have been many antichrists in history, and Christian suffering has been taking place throughout NT history. If we are to understand the Olivet Discourse properly, we need to rely upon the proper context for Jesus' statements, or turn the interpretation into a mess.

 

[Jamdoc]

My point was that the "Great Tribulation," as defined by Jesus, began with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and consisted of an entire age of Jewish cursing, aka the Jewish Diaspora. During this era, the Jews turned against and persecuted Christians among their numbers, and joined pagan Gentiles in showing hostility to Christians.

This was the reason for the curse God has been visiting upon the Jewish People, who largely reject the basis of their covenant with God. That basis is Jesus Christ, who came to end the curse of the Law, fulfilling it in the blessing of eternal life.

Many Christians read the Olivet Discourse and overly Christianize its meaning, failing to see that Jesus was giving prophecy to the Jewish People. Jesus, in this ministry, was still ministering under the Old Covenant to the Jewish People. However, this prophecy takes the Jews and us into the NT era, where "great tribulation" becomes our sometimes experience, as both Jews and pagan Gentiles show hostility towards us.

Thus, this "Great Tribulation" is defined by Jesus as both the punishment of the Jewish people and a time of suffering by Christians. We need to keep this in mind. The "Great Tribulation" is *not* just the 70 AD event of the fall of Jerusalem. That was just the start of Jewish cursing.

Nor was this "Great Tribulation" purely the suffering of Christians, in particular during the reign of Antichrist. There have been many antichrists in history, and Christian suffering has been taking place throughout NT history. If we are to understand the Olivet Discourse properly, we need to rely upon the proper context for Jesus' statements, or turn the interpretation into a mess.

Christianity being the largest religion on the planet right now and still the official state religion of many European countries kinda doesn't sound like ongoing religious persecution for 2000 years.
and the Olivet Discourse was told to Jesus' disciples, not Pharisees.
the hate is for HIS NAME'S SAKE, not because they are Jews.

 

[Ed Parenteau]

Cool.
Jesus didn't return.
and the fig tree had to wither (the destruction of the temple and the scattering of the Jews) before it could bring forth new leaves (the bringing back to Israel in unbelief), note Jesus didn't say it would bring forth fruit before He returns. Just leaves.

But any interpretation hinging on the 70th week of Daniel being around 70AD fails the ultimate test: Jesus didn't return from heaven, people still die, sin still exists. Jesus said ALL these things, not some of them, and so, that includes His return.
You have 2 ways to look at it.
1. Jesus is a charlatan phony and there is no salvation in him and there never was and never will be and we've believed in vain.
or
2. Your interpretation is wrong and 70AD was not the fulfillment.

I'm betting my entire life on #2.

I believe you're looking at the wrong death. There are 2 deaths.
John 11:25
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, 26and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?” 27She said to him, “Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world.”
Colossians 3:1
If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. 2Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. 3For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. 4When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.

You can again see there are 2 deaths. The first death they will never die from but they will still die physically. That's said after Babylon the Great has fallen and continues from then on.
Revelation 14:
13And I heard a voice from heaven saying, “Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.” “Blessed indeed,” says the Spirit, “that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow them!”

Christ died but death had no dominion over Him. In the same way, death has no power over the resurrected.
Revelation 20:5The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. 6Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.

 

[Jamdoc]

I believe you're looking at the wrong death. There are 2 deaths.
John 11:25
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, 26and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?” 27She said to him, “Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world.”
Colossians 3:1
If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. 2Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. 3For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. 4When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.

You can again see there are 2 deaths. The first death they will never die from but they will still die physically. That's said after Babylon the Great has fallen and continues from then on.
Revelation 14:
13And I heard a voice from heaven saying, “Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.” “Blessed indeed,” says the Spirit, “that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow them!”

Christ died but death had no dominion over Him. In the same way, death has no power over the resurrected.
Revelation 20:5The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. 6Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.

Allegorizing to meaninglessness.

Scripture promises a physical resurrection and an end to physical death.

 

[RandyPNW]

Christianity being the largest religion on the planet right now and still the official state religion of many European countries kinda doesn't sound like ongoing religious persecution for 2000 years.
and the Olivet Discourse was told to Jesus' disciples, not Pharisees.
the hate is for HIS NAME'S SAKE, not because they are Jews.

Well, of course Jesus was speaking to his disciples, and not to the Pharisees. The Pharisees wouldn't listen. It was the Christians who had to be warned of the ongoing persecution, or they may think they likewise were as cursed as the Jews.

State Christianity has not exempted Christians from suffering. Even good Christian States, when they existed, suffered from pagan barbarians and Muslims. And when the State Churches grew corrupt, they persecuted good Christians from within their states.

Jesus was warning Christians that the Kingdom would not come immediately, that there would be a long period of time in which Jews would have their restoration delayed, while others would be shown the way into the Kingdom. In the meantime, a lot of trouble would have to be put up with.

The reason for the vast period of time is to enable the preaching of the Gospel to all nations, which is something that takes time, it being that this preaching takes place via Christians. God has wished to use men to reach out to men. And men can only go about their business *slowly.*

 

[Micmac]

The future anti-Christ will be unique in that what we get isn't what we're expecting. He will not emerge from Israel, the EU, Rome, or America. He will not be a global dictator with a sidekick false prophet who unites the world's religions. He will not impose a global mark of the beast.

The Demonic duo is the Mahdi and the dajjal.

The anti-Christ is an Assyrian who unites a coalition of mid-Eastern Islamic nations to take out Israel.

Dispensationalism has destroyed sensible eschatology.

 

[Jamdoc]

Well, of course Jesus was speaking to his disciples, and not to the Pharisees. The Pharisees wouldn't listen. It was the Christians who had to be warned of the ongoing persecution, or they may think they likewise were as cursed as the Jews.

State Christianity has not exempted Christians from suffering. Even good Christian States, when they existed, suffered from pagan barbarians and Muslims. And when the State Churches grew corrupt, they persecuted good Christians from within their states.

Jesus was warning Christians that the Kingdom would not come immediately, that there would be a long period of time in which Jews would have their restoration delayed, while others would be shown the way into the Kingdom. In the meantime, a lot of trouble would have to be put up with.

The reason for the vast period of time is to enable the preaching of the Gospel to all nations, which is something that takes time, it being that this preaching takes place via Christians. God has wished to use men to reach out to men. And men can only go about their business *slowly.*

Starbucks saying "happy holidays" instead of "merry Christmas" is hardly great tribulation.
Imagine the entire world controlled by ISIS and being able to find you anywhere in the world and slowly cut off your head if you won't renounce that Jesus is the Son of God, and watching in horror as people you thought loved the Lord renounce Jesus and say the Shahada in front of you, with your own family being the ones who turn you over to them and you'd have at least some sense of what Great Tribulation is on a personal level.

People from your own church may be the ones holding the knife to your throat.
I don't mean this as a threat or anything btw, I'm just trying to give a sense of what Jesus was warning about.

while yes the persecution of Christians early on was horrific, it was localized, what Jesus warned about was world wide, there won't be countries where it's safe to be a Christian, as there currently is. Christianity as a religion overcame the western world in the past. In fact, that is the basis for how full preterists make their claims that everything is fulfilled. They think that the promises of a new earth by God really just refers to Christianity being the most popular religion in the world. They consider that the fulfillment and that right now we're living in the Millennium if not the New Heavens and New Earth.
It's a tough sell to claim that we're currently in Great Tribulation, being able to be openly Christian and go to church publicly.