No sir, it was definately about the temple.Start at Matt 1.
No, it is not. There is a mixture of both accounts, found in Matthew and Luke (and also Mark). There are various omissions between Matthew and Luke. In Luke we find a description of the temple, which is omitted by Matthew, and in Matthew we find different descriptions omitted by Luke. That's all that it is.
Both are described the same way
Luke 21
"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her
desolation is near.
21 "Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city;
22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled.
23 "Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people;
Matt 24
"Therefore when you see the ABOMINATION OF
DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),
16 then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains.
17 "Whoever is on the housetop must not go down to get the things out that are in his house.
18 "Whoever is in the field must not turn back to get his cloak.
19 "
But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days!
20 "But pray that your flight will not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath.
You are connecting the words "desolation" here for only circumstantial reasons. Christ warns his disciples to flee both in the event of the city being surrounded by [Roman] armies (because the destruction of the temple is nigh) and when the abomination of desolation is seen in the temple (see Dan. 9:27). These are two different events, but because they are omitted by one author and produced by another author you are blending them together.
However, if you read closely you notice marked differences between the two descriptions that prove they cannot be one and the same. For example:
"19For
in those days shall be affliction,
such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be." Mk. 13:19
We could hardly honestly say that the affliction caused during the sacking of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple was greater affliction than anything else in human history.
The Holocaust, for example, was far greater affliction than what happened to Jerusalem and the Israelites in 70 A.D. This proves that Jesus Christ cannot be talking about the events of 70 A.D. - rather, he is talking about the great tribulation. And this is also shown in Matthew:
"21
For then shall be
great tribulation, such
as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." Mt. 24:21
Again, if Christ is referring to 70 A.D. here then he is a liar, because the affliction of those events in no way surpassed that of the Holocaust during WWII, and other atrocities during WWII. Christ is referring to the great tribulation described in Revelation, and that is a truth.
So, bottom line: There are two different descriptions being given - you are being warned to flee in the event of the [Roman] armies compassing Jerusalem, and you are being warned to flee in the event of the abomination of desolation in the temple. Both will cause affliction, but the abomination of desolation event will cause the greatest affliction ever, the period known as the great tribulation.
Noone knows the day or hour, but we might suspect His coming around the first quarter of 2020. This is of course a posttrib view.
A similar pretrib view using the similar data and the restoration of Jerusalem, would be last quarter of 2012, early 2013.
But let us not limit our Lord. He might come before I enter this post. HalleluJAH!
Well, I would say that certain events have to be fulfilled before Jesus Christ can return. Obviously the entire book of Revelation has to be fulfilled, OT prophecies [Isa. 17, etc.] have to be fulfilled, and so forth. But I was thinking about this, and I have another idea about the time when Jesus Christ comes:
"
47Again, the kingdom of heaven is
like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:
48Which,
when it was full, they
drew to shore, and
sat down, and
gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away." Mt. 13:47-48
I believe that this is a very telling verse. The sea is, of course, the human race, the fish are those who profess themselves Christians. But notice what Jesus Christ says:
When it was full, they drew it to land, and sat down, etc. I think that the reference to the net being full is a reference to every single person who will obey the gospel having obeyed it - that is, everyone who has ever been saved has been saved.
In other words, God will wait until there is literally no-one left following the real gospel of Jesus Christ, and then he will destroy the world. I think there is more evidence for this:
"
3And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense,
that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne." Rev. 8:3
Notice what it says - the prayers of ALL saints. This, in my estimation, also means that everyone who has ever obeyed the gospel has already obeyed it. There is also another verse:
"
7Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him:
for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready." Rev. 19:7
This is right at the return of Jesus Christ, and shows, again, that there is no-one left to be saved.
So, essentially, the reason why Jesus Christ has not yet returned is because there are more people to be saved. See that 2 Pet. 3 verse I quoted in an earlier post. Also, Christ tells his disciples that they are the "salt of the earth." Salt is a preservitave. It is my opinion that Christ is making a reference here to his disciples being the ones who preserve the earth from destruction.
