is the future Antichrist unique?

[RandyPNW]

Starbucks saying "happy holidays" instead of "merry Christmas" is hardly great tribulation.

Only you have suggested such a notion. The fact that it happened is irrelevant to the conversation, and perhaps an intentional distraction. It doesn't help your case.

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.

ISIS is happening today. What is your point?

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.

That doesn't sound remotely like what Jesus said.

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.

This is your imaginative scenario. In reality, hostility towards genuine Christianity is continuous, with eras of intense tribulation and eras of more modest tribulation. The point is, the ungodly world is hostile to the Christian witness. Jesus was telling the Church to expect a long period of this situation before his Kingdom comes.

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.

Why is what Preterists believe relevant to this conversation?

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.

What you seem to be missing is that I describe "Great Tribulation" differently than you do. Jesus defined it as "great" because it is longest period of judgment in the history of the Jewish People, threatening their survival as a race and as a nation. There is no question about that, with Russian pogroms and the German Holocaust recorded in history.

The persecution of Christians has been intermittent, intense at times, and less severe at other times. That has been happening all through Christian history. As far as I can tell, you don't address my definition of the Great Tribulation. You don't address how Jesus' defined the Great Tribulation. So your definition of the Great Tribulation is unbiblical.

 

[Jamdoc]

Only you have suggested such a notion. The fact that it happened is irrelevant to the conversation, and perhaps an intentional distraction. It doesn't help your case.

ISIS is happening today. What is your point?

ISIS is something thousands of miles away from you, it's not a part of your every day life. It's someone else suffering for Christ, not you. Great Tribulation will bring it home to all of us.

That doesn't sound remotely like what Jesus said.

Matthew 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.
10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

Jesus is talking about people people proclaiming to follow him betraying others here.

48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;
49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;
50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,
51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Jesus is talking about people within the church falling away and joining with the persecutors.

Mark 13

9 But take heed to yourselves: for 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 against them.
10 And the gospel must first be published among all nations.
11 But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.
12 Now the brother shall betray the brother to death, and the father the son; and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death.
13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Jesus is talking about even people's own family members turning them over to persecution, and it is WORLD WIDE.

Luke 21 mentions the same thing, betrayal by your own family.

This is your imaginative scenario. In reality, hostility towards genuine Christianity is continuous, with eras of intense tribulation and eras of more modest tribulation. The point is, the ungodly world is hostile to the Christian witness. Jesus was telling the Church to expect a long period of this situation before his Kingdom comes.

It's in the word of God. That It will be worldwide, and the beast will make war against the saints and overcome them. Worldwide. Not localized.

Why is what Preterists believe relevant to this conversation?

Because your beliefs align with theirs except you consider this time to be great tribulation rather than the millennium or new heaven and new earth. You both believe 70AD was the end of Daniel's 70th week.

What you seem to be missing is that I describe "Great Tribulation" differently than you do. Jesus defined it as "great" because it is longest period of judgment in the history of the Jewish People, threatening their survival as a race and as a nation. There is no question about that, with Russian pogroms and the German Holocaust recorded in history.

The persecution of Christians has been intermittent, intense at times, and less severe at other times. That has been happening all through Christian history. As far as I can tell, you don't address my definition of the Great Tribulation. You don't address how Jesus' defined the Great Tribulation. So your definition of the Great Tribulation is unbiblical.

Jesus defined great tribulation as beginning after the abomination of desolation, and Daniel gives that it is time, times, and half a time (3.5 years)
Great Tribulation is short by necessity because if the days are not shortened it would completely exterminate believers.
It cannot be 2000 years long per Jesus, we wouldn't have survived not being able to buy or sell or being actively hunted down for 2000 years.

 

[Douggg]

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.

Randy, the great tribulation begins when the abomination of desolation is setup, standing in the holy place. Matthew 24:15-21.

In Daniel 12:11-12, that time period lasts 1335 days.

The reason the great tribulation is not the "age-long period of Jewish punishment" is because in Daniel 12:1 the worst time in the existence of the nation of Israel is in that chapter - which is time of the end. And when Michael stands ups for the nation of Israel.

Which we see in Revelation 12:7-9, Michael and his angels battle Satan and his angels, and consequently Satan the accuser of the Jews is cast down to earth, having but a time, times, half times left.


Daniel 12:
1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

3 And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.

4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

 

[Ed Parenteau]

Allegorizing to meaninglessness.

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

I didn't allegorize anything and you can't prove I did, nor can you prove your claim of a physical resurrection or of an end to physical death.

Here's what an allegory actually looks like.

Galatians 4:
21Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27For it is written,


“Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear;
break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor!
For the children of the desolate one will be more
than those of the one who has a husband.”
28Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. 30But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” 31So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.

As to the physical resurrection, until dispensationalism came along, there aren't many commentaries you can find that believed that.
I will quote from the Expositor's Greek Testament from the end of the 19th century.
As stated on Logos Bible Software website:
The 5-volume Expositor’s Greek Testament ranks among the most important commentaries on the Greek text of the New Testament from the 19th century, drawing from the scholarship of twenty contributors under the editorship of William Robertson Nicoll.

Here's their comment in part on 1 Corinthians 15:37
1 Corinthians 15:37 This added clause meets the finer point of the second question of 1 Corinthians 15:35; God will find a fit body for man’s redeemed nature, as He does for each of the numberless seeds vivified in the soil. “How unintelligent to think, as the Pharisees did, that the same body that was buried must be restored, if there is to be a resurrection! Every wheat-stalk contradicts thee!”

 

[Timtofly]

If a person plugged 40 years into the parable of the fig tree generation, then
1967 + 40 years/generation = 2007. That combination did not work out.

120 years in Genesis would apply to that era as men lived longer lives back then. But not to our day.

I don't think Jesus would have given the parable of the fig tree generation if it were not something that serves to aid Christians alive in the parable of the fig tree generation, to encourage them with hope and peace of mind. Look up! Our redemption draws near. This corruptible shall put on incorruptible, this mortal shall put on immortal.

I think we are living in exciting times. The troubles of this world for us almost over. Eternity near at hand.

We may not know the day nor hour, but we should be able to discern the season.

First of all, Jesus never said one generation later. Why do people even use hard numbers like 40, 70, 80, or even 120?

The number 40 has nothing to do with a generation at all if one is talking about Israel in the wilderness. That 40 years was for the spies who brought back a bad report. They were in the land for 40 days. God punished them a year for each day.

Humans are very capable of having a new generation every 15 years, so why do people not use the number 15, as that is every new generation. The former generation is not relative after 15 years.

Jesus said all would not die, until. So if a couple humans lived to 120, they would experience all those events, as Jesus said. Since no one knows how long people do live, no one can place a number at all. People cannot predict the future, even if they think they can.

Jesus was not talking about life expectancy in the first century. Jesus was talking about living nornal lives at the time of the Second Coming. When I was young, they were still talking about Civil War veterans, and survivors, over a hundred years later. That is what Jesus was referring to. People who remember the experience of Israel becoming a nation will still be alive showing up at Armageddon. Now some want to add the next generation as well who experience 1967. So is that adding to what Jesus said? The last two generations will see all these things?

Yes, most of Jesus' generation and the generation He was talking to were all dead 40 years later in 70AD. Some even want John dead prior to 70AD. Except John was an example of what Jesus was saying as John was still alive into the 90's, while everyone else had already died prior to 70AD. Literally that generation did not make it to 70AD, just like no one made it into the promised land after 40 years. Except Joshua and Caleb. So John, Joshua, and Caleb represent this generation shall not pass, until all these things are fulfilled.


If Preterist can convince us the audience Jesus was talking to were children under 5 years old who would be 45 in 70AD, they may have a point. Remember that Jesus Himself, was 33, so His generation would have been over 70 in 70AD, and more than likely all dead, considering that there was also a major revolt in process and Jews were killing themselves even before Rome got involved. In 69AD, even Rome was having issues as there were 4 emperors in one year.

The reality is that 70AD was 40 years later, specifically if compared to the wilderness wandering of 40 years all would be dead, so the exact opposite of what Jesus said. 40 years would ensure all were dead. Jesus made the point that all would not be dead.

 

[Jamdoc]

I didn't allegorize anything and you can't prove I did, nor can you prove your claim of a physical resurrection or of an end to physical death.

Here's what an allegory actually looks like.

Galatians 4:
21Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27For it is written,


“Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear;
break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor!
For the children of the desolate one will be more
than those of the one who has a husband.”
28Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. 30But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” 31So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.

As to the physical resurrection, until dispensationalism came along, there aren't many commentaries you can find that believed that.
I will quote from the Expositor's Greek Testament from the end of the 19th century.
As stated on Logos Bible Software website:
The 5-volume Expositor’s Greek Testament ranks among the most important commentaries on the Greek text of the New Testament from the 19th century, drawing from the scholarship of twenty contributors under the editorship of William Robertson Nicoll.

Here's their comment in part on 1 Corinthians 15:37
1 Corinthians 15:37 This added clause meets the finer point of the second question of 1 Corinthians 15:35; God will find a fit body for man’s redeemed nature, as He does for each of the numberless seeds vivified in the soil. “How unintelligent to think, as the Pharisees did, that the same body that was buried must be restored, if there is to be a resurrection! Every wheat-stalk contradicts thee!”

Jesus was resurrected physically, in fact that's an important part of the resurrection, that it was tangible and physical.

Luke 24

36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
43 And he took it, and did eat before them.

Like this right here, shoots down the idea of the resurrection just being spiritual.

Romans 8

22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.

2 points, first, that we're waiting for the redemption of our body, not just spirit, second Paul was still waiting for it as a yet future event, so no Jesus resurrecting and going to the right hand of the Father was not the fulfillment of it. Again, it is a physical resurrection, like Christ was physically resurrected, it is in our future.

Philippians 3

20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:
21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

Bodily change.

1 John 3

2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

John echoes Paul, that we're still waiting for something in the future, and that we are not currently what we will be, and when Jesus comes back, we'll be like Jesus, that is, resurrected bodily.

Physical resurrection is biblical.
this "die and go to heaven forever as a spirit" is what is unbiblical.

 

[RandyPNW]

ISIS is something thousands of miles away from you, it's not a part of your every day life. It's someone else suffering for Christ, not you. Great Tribulation will bring it home to all of us.

Matthew 24


Jesus is talking about people people proclaiming to follow him betraying others here.


Jesus is talking about people within the church falling away and joining with the persecutors.

Mark 13

Jesus is talking about even people's own family members turning them over to persecution, and it is WORLD WIDE.

Luke 21 mentions the same thing, betrayal by your own family.



It's in the word of God. That It will be worldwide, and the beast will make war against the saints and overcome them. Worldwide. Not localized.

You're still not recognizing the difference between how we're defining the "Great Tribulation." You're defining it as "worldwide" and experienced by "all Christians" in some kind of "intense way."

I'm defining it as Jesus did, as a "Jewish Punishment" characterized as *agelong,* and sometimes intense and sometimes less intense, but threatening in the long run the existence of the Jewish People. Please recognize the difference?

Because your beliefs align with theirs except you consider this time to be great tribulation rather than the millennium or new heaven and new earth. You both believe 70AD was the end of Daniel's 70th week.

No, belief in the historical fulfillment of Daniels' 70th Week and the Olivet Discourse is not, by definition, "Preterism." Christians who do not wish to embrace the historical interpretation of this wish to characterize an "historical interpretation" as a "Preterist interpretation" to imply commonalities that don't exist. They sometimes do this for malicious reasons, but sometimes out of genuine confusion of the two distinct ideas

Preterism is a system of interpretation that views prophecy as fulfilled *primarily* in the past, just like some Christians wish to view the "spiritual gifts" as largely "apostolic" and active only in the past.

We *all* hold to historical interpretation, both Futurists and Preterists. We all believe at least some prophecy has already been fulfilled in the past.

Preterism, therefore, is not relevant here in this conversation. I'm not discussing the Preterist view, but rather, the Historical view. Please recognize the difference?

Jesus defined great tribulation as beginning after the abomination of desolation, and Daniel gives that it is time, times, and half a time (3.5 years)

No, Jesus did not say that 3.5 years would follow the AoD in his Olivet Discourse. You are adding to the account. Jesus defined the AoD as "armies surrounding Jerusalem" in "this generation," ie in his own generation. That had to be 66-70 AD.

This AoD experience would lead to an age-long Jewish Punishment called the "Great Tribulation," or the "Great Distress." It would for length of time and for sometimes-brutality threaten the existence of the Jewish People.

It would be their punishment for rejecting Christ and for persecuting Christians. This period would mean, for Christians, a long delay in the coming of the Kingdom of God so that while waiting to see the Gospel penetrate all nations the sins of the Jews would be tolerated along with the sins of the pagan world so as to not destroy them before they can be restored to the Kingdom of God.

Great Tribulation is short by necessity because if the days are not shortened it would completely exterminate believers.
It cannot be 2000 years long per Jesus, we wouldn't have survived not being able to buy or sell or being actively hunted down for 2000 years.

I believe Antichrist will be a military threat to the whole world, and yet loved by people in all nations for his carnal nature and love for the world. But he will be based in Europe, and likely hated by other national governments whether out of righteous indignation or out of jealousy.

The hate for the Jewish People has always been intense at times, but in modern times the technology and the sheer weight of collapsing Christian civilization is threatening the survival of the Jewish People.

It is simultaneously a threat to the Christian faith as Christendom collapses under the pressure of a hostile world majority who rejects dogmatic and spiritual Christianity. Christians are encourage to persevere in difficult conditions that exist *throughout the NT age!*

Jesus did not warn his Disciples about a "Great Tribulation" for the Jewish People to simply instruct those of his own generation. He was warning *all generations of Christians* that times would be difficult for them in a hostile, sinful world while awaiting for many to be recovered to the faith or introduced to the faith for the 1st time.

 

[Jamdoc]

You're still not recognizing the difference between how we're defining the "Great Tribulation." You're defining it as "worldwide" and experienced by "all Christians" in some kind of "intense way."

Hated by ALL NATIONS yes
worldwide.

I'm defining it as Jesus did, as a "Jewish Punishment" characterized as *agelong,* and sometimes intense and sometimes less intense, but threatening in the long run the existence of the Jewish People. Please recognize the difference?

I recognize your error.
But that's what it is, error.
The audience for the Olivet Discourse was not "Jewish people" it was "Disciples of Jesus" This is the same error that dispensationalists make, funny that you make the same error from the opposite direction.
It is not hatred because the Jews rebelled against the Roman Empire.
It's hatred because of Jesus. 70AD was not about hating Jesus. 70AD was putting down a Jewish (that largely rejected Jesus) revolt.

It does not apply. Believing it does is error.

No, belief in the historical fulfillment of Daniels' 70th Week and the Olivet Discourse is not, by definition, "Preterism." Christians who do not wish to embrace the historical interpretation of this wish to characterize an "historical interpretation" as a "Preterist interpretation" to imply commonalities that don't exist. They sometimes do this for malicious reasons, but sometimes out of genuine confusion of the two distinct ideas

Preterism is a system of interpretation that views prophecy as fulfilled *primarily* in the past, just like some Christians wish to view the "spiritual gifts" as largely "apostolic" and active only in the past.

We *all* hold to historical interpretation, both Futurists and Preterists. We all believe at least some prophecy has already been fulfilled in the past.

Preterism, therefore, is not relevant here in this conversation. I'm not discussing the Preterist view, but rather, the Historical view. Please recognize the difference?

Historicism differs by not seeing the 70th week fulfilled at 70AD but seeing the 70th week play out through history, they'll assign different events in Revelation to historical events over the last 2000 years, oftentimes Historicists will see fulfillment of Antichrist as being the Papacy, etc.

Because you identify so strongly with 70AD being the fulfillment that aligns with partial preterism.

No, Jesus did not say that 3.5 years would follow the AoD in his Olivet Discourse. You are adding to the account. Jesus defined the AoD as "armies surrounding Jerusalem" in "this generation," ie in his own generation. That had to be 66-70 AD.

Jesus referred to Daniel. Daniel and Revelation both speak about the same period of time, 3.5 years.

and you keep using "this generation" out of context. You throw away the parable of the fig tree and interpret the scripture as if that parable was not immediately preceding "this generation"

 

[Timtofly]

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.

Can you even prove that what Jesus said in Luke 21 was even said on the Mount of Olives? The reason it is different from Matthew and Mark is because Luke was the Temple Discourse and not the Olivet Discourse at all.

Theologians just assume that since they sound similar means they were given at the same time. But these verses were remembered from several days of Jesus teaching both on the Mount of Olives and in the Temple. The mount of Olives is not even mentioned in Luke 21 until the end of the chapter. Luke never even covered what was mentioned on the Mount of Olives as far as we know. We only get the pertinent parts of what was taught over the course of several days and nights.

But theologians inserted their personal opinion over time, and the church accepted their theories without question. Although at some point in church history people were martyred for sticking to the truth instead of accepting forced human opinion and doctrine. Here is the big difference:

"So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled."

This verse does not say that last generation will see all fulfillment. The verse says all will be fulfilled even those things that were fulfilled 2,000 years prior.

"So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."

Luke did not use the word "panta". It is only those who insist that Luke is calling the Roman armies the AoD who are contradicting themselves and Scripture. Jesus was warning all of those listening in the Temple that day. Not about 70AD per se. Jesus was warning them about the Romans armies that came in 66AD. Even the footnote to Josephus in some English Translations points that out. That was the historist view of the Reformation when the works of Josephus were translated. Jesus was not talking about Roman armies in general. Rome already had a garrison stationed in the very buildings Jesus was talking about the moment Jesus was warning them. Jesus was warning them about their own civil war and the Romans coming in to stop the bloodshed. The destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem was collateral damage brought on by the Jews themselves.

So yes, the Second Coming is included even while Jesus was teaching in the Temple. Everything will have been fulfilled at the Second Coming. But no one has to force a Second Coming into the first century because of the words about a "single generation". No one even has to define what a generation is, as that is adding to the text what is not there.

 

[RandyPNW]

Can you even prove that what Jesus said in Luke 21 was even said on the Mount of Olives? The reason it is different from Matthew and Mark is because Luke was the Temple Discourse and not the Olivet Discourse at all.

Yes, I've proven it a couple of times by comparing the 3 versions of the Olivet Discourse and overlapping them. This use of a kind of overlapping transparency shows that in the *same place* Jesus mentioned the Abomination of Desolation in Matthew Jesus mentions the encirclement of Jerusalem by Armies in Luke.

This kind of comparison also shows that Jesus was specifically answering questions that directly resulted from Jesus' statement about the destruction of the temple *before* he ascended the Mt. of Olives. It was *all one Discussion,* even though it extended over a period of hours perhaps. The ascent up the Mt. of Olives from the temple is not far!

You have to decide for yourself what is "adequate proof" and what you wish to believe. We all believe the Bible. That's a good place to place your faith.

 

[RandyPNW]

Hated by ALL NATIONS yes
worldwide.

As I said it is a characterization of the present world, universally! But it is not a constant in terms of *intensity.* You're ignoring that point. You and I disagree on how *Jesus* defined this Great Tribulation. You are arguing *your own definition,* and not *Jesus' definition!*

Jesus defined the Great Tribulation or Great Distress as a *Jewish Punishment* lasting throughout the NT era. That is not going to consist of world-wide persecution of the Jews *at all times* and *in all places!* But it generally characterizes the Jewish experience of Diaspora in the current age. This is *Jesus' definition,* and not my own. I'm simply adopting for myself *his definition.*

Why do you keep ignoring my point? Why do you completely ignore the *differences* between the definitions we are personally employing in describing this "Great Tribulation?" I'm not saying we are to agree. We should simply recognize that we are beginning with different definitions.

The audience for the Olivet Discourse was not "Jewish people" it was "Disciples of Jesus" This is the same error that dispensationalists make, funny that you make the same error from the opposite direction.

In addressing his Disciples Jesus was, in fact, addressing the Jewish future, and giving a message to be given to the Jewish People. He was equipping his Disciples with the message of the Gospel, that in rejecting the Gospel the Jewish People would be judged until his 2nd Coming.

It is not hatred because the Jews rebelled against the Roman Empire.
It's hatred because of Jesus. 70AD was not about hating Jesus. 70AD was putting down a Jewish (that largely rejected Jesus) revolt.

This is a bit contradictory for me. You say it's "hated because of Jesus." But then you say "70 AD was not about hating Jesus."

Like all OT judgments against Israel the 70 AD judgment was against Israel because of their disobedience to God's word. In this case, they disobeyed God's word as revealed in Jesus.

And this was manifested in the Jews by their hatred for Jewish believers in Jesus. It was for this hatred directed at his Disciples that Jesus said the Jewish People would be judged, have their temple destroyed, along with temple law, and suffer the loss of their homeland in Israel.

Historicism differs by not seeing the 70th week fulfilled at 70AD but seeing the 70th week play out through history, they'll assign different events in Revelation to historical events over the last 2000 years, oftentimes Historicists will see fulfillment of Antichrist as being the Papacy, etc.

Yes, but you are misrepresenting me again. I said the AoD was *historically fulfilled," and not fulfilled according to the Historicist Position. Historicists do see prophecy fulfilled in history, but they do tend to peg certain fulfillments in history inaccurately at times. I'm arguing, in contrast, for an "historical fulfillment" in 70 AD!

Because you identify so strongly with 70AD being the fulfillment that aligns with partial preterism.

As I said, the historically-fulfilled position regarding the Olivet Discourse greatly *preceded* the birth of the Preterist position! So it is *not* to be confused with Preterism of any kind. Your insistence on doing so shows questionable ethics. You should be honest and admit the difference.

Jesus referred to Daniel. Daniel and Revelation both speak about the same period of time, 3.5 years.

Jesus spoke of Daniel, but did not mention the 3.5 years in this particular Discourse. You are intentional conflating the two separate ideas.

You are assuming your interpretation of the Olivet Discourse is correct, which if true would identify the Great Tribulation with the 3.5 years of Antichrist's Reign. But you cannot use as proof something that has yet to be established or recognized by both of us.

You may use it for yourself, but it is not of use for me, since your "proof" consists of your own presuppositions. The fact is, beyond question, Jesus did *not* mention 3.5 years in his Olivet Discourse. And that is the point.

For me, the Great Tribulation is the Jewish Diaspora, which merely began in 70 AD. So the 3.5 years was not even mentioned in the Olivet Discourse, which was just a general description of the Jewish experience in the NT era. The 3.5 years comes at the very end of this period.

and you keep using "this generation" out of context. You throw away the parable of the fig tree and interpret the scripture as if that parable was not immediately preceding "this generation"

I don't throw away the parable of the fig tree. Jesus explained what it meant.

It referred to Jesus' generation and to the initial Spring indicators that the Kingdom had drawn near. But it would not lead to the immediate inception of the Kingdom. Rather, the "tree" would be reduced to a "stump."

 

[Jamdoc]

As I said it is a characterization of the present world, universally! But it is not a constant in terms of *intensity.* You're ignoring that point. You and I disagree on how *Jesus* defined this Great Tribulation. You are arguing *your own definition,* and not *Jesus' definition!*

Jesus' definition was it would be for His disciples, not Jews who rejected Him, His disciples, for His name, it'd be universal, and when Jesus talked about it He said don't even go to pack your bags, just flee, and it'd be worse than any persecution up to that time, or ever would happen again.
Note the fleeing part.
We aren't doing that are we, living in known households shopping at grocery stores and chit chatting on the internet, using cellphones that ping our location to GPS satellites to be tracked.

When great tribulation happens, all that goes out the window, you live on the run.
and you can't live on the run for 2000 years. Even 3.5 years is pushing it, and is going to take the Providence of God just to get through the shortened days.

Jesus defined the Great Tribulation or Great Distress as a *Jewish Punishment* lasting throughout the NT era. That is not going to consist of world-wide persecution of the Jews *at all times* and *in all places!* But it generally characterizes the Jewish experience of Diaspora in the current age. This is *Jesus' definition,* and not my own. I'm simply adopting for myself *his definition.*

No He didn't, His audience was His disciples, not the Jewish people in general. That's a dispensationalist teaching and it's error. Jews don't get hated for His name's sake. They reject Christ. Unless you're talking about Jesus saying His Church was going to persecute Jews for rejecting Jesus, but that's not what the text is getting at. Rather Jesus said that His disciples were going to be dragged into synagogues and beaten.. by Jews but everyone in general. They were going to be hated by those who say they are Jews, and are not, but are the Synagogue of Satan.

Why do you keep ignoring my point? Why do you completely ignore the *differences* between the definitions we are personally employing in describing this "Great Tribulation?" I'm not saying we are to agree. We should simply recognize that we are beginning with different definitions.

my beginning point is who's the intended audience.
it's not unbelieving Jews.
It's His disciples, Christians.

In addressing his Disciples Jesus was, in fact, addressing the Jewish future, and giving a message to be given to the Jewish People. He was equipping his Disciples with the message of the Gospel, that in rejecting the Gospel the Jewish People would be judged until his 2nd Coming.

You start from a standpoint of error. The text talks about dragging people into synagogues and beating them. It is not a message for the Jewish people, it's a message for Christians exclusively. It was a private audience.
Hated for HIS name's sake.
Christians will be hated because of Jesus. That's the main message.

This is a bit contradictory for me. You say it's "hated because of Jesus." But then you say "70 AD was not about hating Jesus."

The Romans were not burning Jerusalem because of Jesus. they were burning Jerusalem because the Jews revolted against Rome.

so 70AD is not what Jesus was talking about when He talked about Christians being hated by all nations for His name's sake, because the reason the Romans attacked Jerusalem had NOTHING TO DO WITH JESUS as far as the Romans were concerned.

Like all OT judgments against Israel the 70 AD judgment was against Israel because of their disobedience to God's word. In this case, they disobeyed God's word as revealed in Jesus.

Yes, but Great Tribulation Jesus talked about, was not referring to AD 70. What Jesus was talking about, was about the great tribulation that Christians would face just prior to His return, days that would be shortened.
Time, times, and half a time.

And this was manifested in the Jews by their hatred for Jewish believers in Jesus. It was for this hatred directed at his Disciples that Jesus said the Jewish People would be judged, have their temple destroyed, along with temple law, and suffer the loss of their homeland in Israel.

Yes, but you are misrepresenting me again. I said the AoD was *historically fulfilled," and not fulfilled according to the Historicist Position. Historicists do see prophecy fulfilled in history, but they do tend to peg certain fulfillments in history inaccurately at times. I'm arguing, in contrast, for an "historical fulfillment" in 70 AD!

As I said, the historically-fulfilled position regarding the Olivet Discourse greatly *preceded* the birth of the Preterist position! So it is *not* to be confused with Preterism of any kind. Your insistence on doing so shows questionable ethics. You should be honest and admit the difference.

Jesus spoke of Daniel, but did not mention the 3.5 years in this particular Discourse. You are intentional conflating the two separate ideas.

You are assuming your interpretation of the Olivet Discourse is correct, which if true would identify the Great Tribulation with the 3.5 years of Antichrist's Reign. But you cannot use as proof something that has yet to be established or recognized by both of us.

You may use it for yourself, but it is not of use for me, since your "proof" consists of your own presuppositions. The fact is, beyond question, Jesus did *not* mention 3.5 years in his Olivet Discourse. And that is the point.

For me, the Great Tribulation is the Jewish Diaspora, which merely began in 70 AD. So the 3.5 years was not even mentioned in the Olivet Discourse, which was just a general description of the Jewish experience in the NT era. The 3.5 years comes at the very end of this period.

Jesus refers to Daniel, He didn't need to go into the particulars of the 70th week, because His audience would know "spoken of by the prophet Daniel? Okay, we know what that entails" The mention of great tribulation actually quotes from Daniel 12, and that period of time.. is Time, Times, and Half a time.

I don't throw away the parable of the fig tree. Jesus explained what it meant.

It referred to Jesus' generation and to the initial Spring indicators that the Kingdom had drawn near. But it would not lead to the immediate inception of the Kingdom. Rather, the "tree" would be reduced to a "stump."

the fig tree He was using as a parable, He withered, but then He said it would bring forth new leaves.

That's the generation that'll witness all things.

 

[Timtofly]

Yes, I've proven it a couple of times by comparing the 3 versions of the Olivet Discourse and overlapping them. This use of a kind of overlapping transparency shows that in the *same place* Jesus mentioned the Abomination of Desolation in Matthew Jesus mentions the encirclement of Jerusalem by Armies in Luke.

This kind of comparison also shows that Jesus was specifically answering questions that directly resulted from Jesus' statement about the destruction of the temple *before* he ascended the Mt. of Olives. It was *all one Discussion,* even though it extended over a period of hours perhaps. The ascent up the Mt. of Olives from the temple is not far!

You have to decide for yourself what is "adequate proof" and what you wish to believe. We all believe the Bible. That's a good place to place your faith.

The proof is that Jesus taught daily in the Temple and in the evening, night, taught on the Mount of Olives. Unless Jesus slept during the day in the Temple, Jesus gave way more information in the Temple than on the mount of Olives.

You are stating that not a single word taught in the Temple was ever written down. Since Luke never mentioned what was written as being in private on the mountain, it seems those words are spoken to all in the Temple, as making more sense.

Jesus taught for more than a couple of hours between Palm Sunday in the temple, Monday and Tuesday in the Temple, and Sunday and Monday evening on the Mount of Olives.

You start out that Luke is automatically given on the mount without any proof whatsoever. Luke is not even the same wording so instead of accepting that Luke is telling us what Jesus said in the Temple, you are changing what Luke wrote to fit your preconceived assumption. Then making that your proof that Luke was writing about something on the mount of Olives. It is Luke who explains that Jesus taught both in the Temple and on the mountain, yet that seems to be ignored as not even relevant.

 

[Ed Parenteau]

Jesus was resurrected physically, in fact that's an important part of the resurrection, that it was tangible and physical.

Luke 24

Like this right here, shoots down the idea of the resurrection just being spiritual.

Romans 8

2 points, first, that we're waiting for the redemption of our body, not just spirit, second Paul was still waiting for it as a yet future event, so no Jesus resurrecting and going to the right hand of the Father was not the fulfillment of it. Again, it is a physical resurrection, like Christ was physically resurrected, it is in our future.

Philippians 3

Bodily change.

1 John 3

John echoes Paul, that we're still waiting for something in the future, and that we are not currently what we will be, and when Jesus comes back, we'll be like Jesus, that is, resurrected bodily.

Physical resurrection is biblical.
this "die and go to heaven forever as a spirit" is what is unbiblical.

I'll start with 1 John 3:2. Some 500 people saw the resurrected Christ. The apostles were with Him some 40 days and then saw Him ascend to the Father. Yet in the following it says what they would be has not yet been revealed. It is not till He appears that they will see him as He is. Therefore it can't be like His physical resurrection which they all saw.
1 John 3:2Beloved, we are now children of God, and what we will be has not yet been revealed. We know that when Christ appears, we will be like Him, for we will see Him as He is.
To further understand what John is referring to, we need to go back to John 14.
I am not saying we will be spirits. It will be raised a spiritual body, as opposed to the natural body we are in.

The redemption of our(plural) body(singular)
Ephesians 4:
4There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
https://biblescan.com/search.php?q="one+body"

Christ's glorious body: It doesn't say "glorified body". Christ prayed that He would receive the glory He had before the foundation of the world. And He did.

 

[Jamdoc]

I'll start with 1 John 3:2. Some 500 people saw the resurrected Christ. The apostles were with Him some 40 days and then saw Him ascend to the Father. Yet in the following it says what they would be has not yet been revealed. It is not till He appears that they will see him as He is. Therefore it can't be like His physical resurrection which they all saw.
1 John 3:2Beloved, we are now children of God, and what we will be has not yet been revealed. We know that when Christ appears, we will be like Him, for we will see Him as He is.
To further understand what John is referring to, we need to go back to John 14.
I am not saying we will be spirits. It will be raised a spiritual body, as opposed to the natural body we are in.

The redemption of our(plural) body(singular)
Ephesians 4:
4There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
https://biblescan.com/search.php?q="one+body"

Christ's glorious body: It doesn't say "glorified body". Christ prayed that He would receive the glory He had before the foundation of the world. And He did.

In Revelation John sees Jesus and He is described physically.

 

[RandyPNW]

The proof is that Jesus taught daily in the Temple and in the evening, night, taught on the Mount of Olives. Unless Jesus slept during the day in the Temple, Jesus gave way more information in the Temple than on the mount of Olives.

You are stating that not a single word taught in the Temple was ever written down.

Where did I say that? In fact I did *not* say that! I would assume that a number of things Jesus taught in the Temple were written down.

Since Luke never mentioned what was written as being in private on the mountain, it seems those words are spoken to all in the Temple, as making more sense.

That's just your own logic speaking. To me it makes more sense that Jesus said some things at the Temple about the coming destruction of that Temple, and then continued that conversation as he was leaving the temple and as he ascended the Mt. of Olivet with his Disciples, who obviously would want to know more.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke certainly were either there or had plenty of corroboration about what took place in that general time, whether they were in the Temple area, or on the Mt. of Olives itself. The main issue was indicated by the questions Jesus' Disciples asked him in response to his statement that the Temple would be destroyed. Again, it was all a single conversation, involving the question, "When would this happen?"

Jesus taught for more than a couple of hours between Palm Sunday in the temple, Monday and Tuesday in the Temple, and Sunday and Monday evening on the Mount of Olives.

I'm not sure what the exact timetable is--it doesn't matter for this subject.

You start out that Luke is automatically given on the mount without any proof whatsoever.

The 3 Gospel accounts are comparable.

Luke is not even the same wording so instead of accepting that Luke is telling us what Jesus said in the Temple, you are changing what Luke wrote to fit your preconceived assumption.

Since Luke is a different person, his language is bound to be his own wording. There is such a thing as synonyms. Jesus could describe a single event with one Gospel using some of the language describing the event and another Gospel using some of the other language Jesus used in describing the event.

That is how it is with the Abomination of Desolation. Jesus obviously described it as an AoD and also as an assembly of an Army surrounding Jerusalem. Both descriptions fit the answer to the main question, "When will the Temple be destroyed?"

Then making that your proof that Luke was writing about something on the mount of Olives. It is Luke who explains that Jesus taught both in the Temple and on the mountain, yet that seems to be ignored as not even relevant.

I didn't say where Jesus taught, in different places, was irrelevant--just not relevant to the point I'm making. Jesus taught both in the Temple and on the Mountain. It was all one conversation, extending over the course of a relatively short distance up a small mountain.

 

[Ed Parenteau]

In Revelation John sees Jesus and He is described physically.

Really, you take all these spiritual visions of Christ literally?
Revelation 1:12Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, 13and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash around his chest. 14The hairs of his head were white, like white wool, like snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, 15his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters. 16In his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength.

Revelation 5:6And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.

Revelation 19:12His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. 13He is clothed in a robe dipped inb blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. 14And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. 15From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty

Plus 28 other times He is described as a lamb.

Here are two literal descriptions of Jesus by Paul in his epistles.

1Timothy 6:
14Keep this commandment without stain or reproach until the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15which the blessed and only Sovereign One—the King of kings and Lord of lords—will bring about in His own time. 16He alone is immortal and dwells in unapproachable light. No one has ever seen Him, nor can anyone see Him. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.

Colossians 1:15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation:

Or in Hebrews 5:7In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence.

 

[Jamdoc]

Really, you take all these spiritual visions of Christ literally?
Revelation 1:12Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, 13and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash around his chest. 14The hairs of his head were white, like white wool, like snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, 15his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters. 16In his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength.

Revelation 5:6And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.

Revelation 19:12His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. 13He is clothed in a robe dipped inb blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. 14And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. 15From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty

Plus 28 other times He is described as a lamb.

Here are two literal descriptions of Jesus by Paul in his epistles.

1Timothy 6:
14Keep this commandment without stain or reproach until the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15which the blessed and only Sovereign One—the King of kings and Lord of lords—will bring about in His own time. 16He alone is immortal and dwells in unapproachable light. No one has ever seen Him, nor can anyone see Him. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.

Colossians 1:15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation:

Or in Hebrews 5:7In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence.

A bit of poetic emphasis, but yes I believe John saw the living Lord Jesus Christ, having white hair, a white robe, a bronze toned/tanned skin, and glowing.
I believe it was a physical being not a ghost.

 

[Ed Parenteau]

A bit of poetic emphasis, but yes I believe John saw the living Lord Jesus Christ, having white hair, a white robe, a bronze toned/tanned skin, and glowing.
I believe it was a physical being not a ghost.

It's a simile--One "like" the son of man.
How will God and the Lamb be the temple of the New Jerusalem? How are a physical Christ and physical believers going to indwell one another per John 14:
17even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will beg in you. 18“I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19Yet a little while and the world will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.
Colossians 1:To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

 

[Jamdoc]

It's a simile--One "like" the son of man.
How will God and the Lamb be the temple of the New Jerusalem? How are a physical Christ and physical believers going to indwell one another per John 14:
17even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will beg in you. 18“I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19Yet a little while and the world will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.
Colossians 1:To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

The same way we're a temple of the Holy Spirit. A temple is a place where God dwells, if Jesus is physically on the Earth, then He is the temple Himself, the physical embodiment.
We were created Body first, we aren't meant to be intangible spirits. We're meant to be physical corporeal beings, physical images of God to tend to and have dominion of His creation.
intangible souls are what we see in the 5th seal in Revelation 6, they're not happy, they're not blissful, they're in an unnatural state and they are crying out for justice, and the redemption of their bodies.