When Will Christ Return?

[Douggg]

Well, here's the thing.

It was John's generation, so there!

(Dougg, when you learn to submit a few items of data in your posts, and maybe one day even a whole argument, then I might reply with a bit more care. Until then I'll just reply with the same unsupported dogmatism. And nothing you said forms a coherent argument against all the points I raised above).

You can say it was John's generation, but at this board the full preterist view is not allowed. What things in Matthew 24 that Jesus prophesied did not take place in John's generation? The burden is on you to show that you don't have the full preterist position.

Doug

 

[doright]

You can say it was John's generation, but at this board the full preterist view is not allowed. What things in Matthew 24 that Jesus prophesied did not take place in John's generation? The burden is on you to show that you don't have the full preterist position.

Doug

it wasn't john's generation , so there

 

[toLiJC]

So, what year range do you think Jesus Christ will return?

no later than 5-6 millennia counted from the seventh day onwards

Revelation 17:10 "And there are seven kings(ie seven times): five are fallen(ie counted from the seventh day onward, five millennia will pass), and one is(ie end the end of the reign of the "darkness" will occur in the sixth millennium), and the other is not yet come(ie and the time during which the "darkness" will reign in the sixth millennium has not yet occurred); and when he cometh, he must continue a short space."

Blessings

 

[Manasseh_]

One part that causes much confusion is that John says the time is 'at hand.' Thus, people think it must have been fulfilled thousands of years ago. What they don't understand is that time runs differently for God, and Revelation is written from God's perspective. For example, Peter says that with God a thousand years is as a day and a day as a thousand years. Moses says a thousand years in God's sight are but as a day (Psalm 90).

Therefore, the time being 'at hand' is not referring to human standards of time but to God's standards of time.

I agree with that...........

the real point though that "shortly come to pass" shouldn't lead anyone to the conclusion that this prophecy is a "sermon" or a letter from an apostle only for the churches of his generation or to help saints in any generation with their trials and tribulations they go through..................after reading all the content of the prophecy it should be obvious , especially with all the symbolism used and the type of visions John had of strange events to occur couldn't possibly be only a sermon or a letter to help the churches in basic doctrine and understanding

where eclipse seems to contradict himself is that he claims it's not a future prophecy but rather a "sermon" but at the same time accuses "futurists" of adding 2000 years to this prophecy..........if it's not a prophecy in the first place then how can 2000 years be added, or in other words just how do you add a 2000 year time lapse to a sermon ?...........and if it's a prophecy already fulfilled then history should give evidence that it has been fulfilled............and if eclipse claims that some of it is still future then it is a prophecy

if anything after reading the content I don't understand how one can imply that it's a sermon ???

 

[eclipsenow]

You can say it was John's generation, but at this board the full preterist view is not allowed. What things in Matthew 24 that Jesus prophesied did not take place in John's generation? The burden is on you to show that you don't have the full preterist position.

Doug

No wonder your confused: I'm talking about John's letter to the first generation of Christians to suffer under the Roman persecution, that letter we call Revelation. You, apparently, were talking about Matthew 24. Well, if you're not going to be specific about what book or verse you are actually discussing... flitting between John's generation and then discussing Matthew... you've got to show a bit more grace about labelling someone a Full Preterist. The confusion is of your own making!

Matthew 24 is about both the return of the Lord (in highly symbolic language) *and* is also about the much more imminent destruction of the temple which occurred in AD70.

First, the Disciples are on the Mount of Olives gazing down at Herod's temple and asking about that temple. The one they were looking at with their own eyes. Earlier in the gospels they visited Jerusalem and saw the temple in all its glory and Jesus shocked them by saying it was going to be destroyed!

They thought he was the Messiah. They thought he had come to install the kingdom of God and kick out the Romans. They thought they were going to reign with him! And then he starts talking about the destruction of the temple and that he would rebuild it again in 3 days. Then he pronounces 7 woes on Jerusalem, quoting OT prophets pronouncing Judgement on Israel if she ever left the path.

The disciples are not asking about some (still hypothetical and imaginary) third temple that is over 2000 years in their future! They are asking about the temple they can see with their own eyes! The destruction of this wonderful temple surely has them asking about the end of the age.

So Jesus gives them signs and warnings: when you see it surrounded by armies and the laid desolate by the abomination, get out! As we know from Josephus, the temple was destroyed by the Romans who committed an abomination, right in the temple courtyard as the temple burned and all the gold dribbled down into the drains. And the Romans pulled it apart stone by stone to get the gold. There isn't one temple stone left upon another. The temple was destroyed. Just as Jesus told them it would be.

With the disciples looking at and asking about *their* temple, which history tells us WAS destroyed in AD70 by some very specific Roman actions, the burden of proof is on the futurists who assert this is about an entirely hypothetical 3rd temple!

Jesus does switch between talking about the end of the temple and the end of the age when he will returns (still in the future, see, I'm not a FULL Preterist at all!) But for now that's too much to cover. For now, please explain why Matthew 24 has to cover the end of ANOTHER temple, one that does not even exist and they cannot see?

 

[Achilles6129]

No wonder your confused: I'm talking about John's letter to the first generation of Christians to suffer under the Roman persecution, that letter we call Revelation. You, apparently, were talking about Matthew 24. Well, if you're not going to be specific about what book or verse you are actually discussing... flitting between John's generation and then discussing Matthew... you've got to show a bit more grace about labelling someone a Full Preterist. The confusion is of your own making!

Matthew 24 is about both the return of the Lord (in highly symbolic language) *and* is also about the much more imminent destruction of the temple which occurred in AD70.

First, the Disciples are on the Mount of Olives gazing down at Herod's temple and asking about that temple. The one they were looking at with their own eyes. Earlier in the gospels they visited Jerusalem and saw the temple in all its glory and Jesus shocked them by saying it was going to be destroyed!

They thought he was the Messiah. They thought he had come to install the kingdom of God and kick out the Romans. They thought they were going to reign with him! And then he starts talking about the destruction of the temple and that he would rebuild it again in 3 days. Then he pronounces 7 woes on Jerusalem, quoting OT prophets pronouncing Judgement on Israel if she ever left the path.

The disciples are not asking about some (still hypothetical and imaginary) third temple that is over 2000 years in their future! They are asking about the temple they can see with their own eyes! The destruction of this wonderful temple surely has them asking about the end of the age.

So Jesus gives them signs and warnings: when you see it surrounded by armies and the laid desolate by the abomination, get out! As we know from Josephus, the temple was destroyed by the Romans who committed an abomination, right in the temple courtyard as the temple burned and all the gold dribbled down into the drains. And the Romans pulled it apart stone by stone to get the gold. There isn't one temple stone left upon another. The temple was destroyed. Just as Jesus told them it would be.

With the disciples looking at and asking about *their* temple, which history tells us WAS destroyed in AD70 by some very specific Roman actions, the burden of proof is on the futurists who assert this is about an entirely hypothetical 3rd temple!

Jesus does switch between talking about the end of the temple and the end of the age when he will returns (still in the future, see, I'm not a FULL Preterist at all!) But for now that's too much to cover. For now, please explain why Matthew 24 has to cover the end of ANOTHER temple, one that does not even exist and they cannot see?

Eclipse, the simple reading of the passage favors a futurist interpretation. E.G.

"3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.
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.
13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes." Mt. 24:3-17

It is clear that the portion of the discourse that Matthew records is only a part of what Christ really said (see Mk. 13 and Lu. 21). However, an examination of the passage (especially v. 14) shows that this is talking about the distant future. By AD 70 the gospel had not been preached in all the world. That's the two witnesses' job (Rev. 11). Notice Christ says that after the gospel is preached in all the world (by the two witnesses, via television/internet/film) the end (of the age) comes. Christ then refers to the abomination of desolation, spoken of in Dan. 9. Dan. 9 indicates that the abomination of desolation happens during a 3.5 year period (corresponding to the 42 months of Revelation 13).

There was no 3.5 year period preceding AD 70 when the Romans destroyed the temple. Christ is adamant that the abomination of desolation is SET UP in the temple. The Romans did no such thing. This is a future prophecy regarding the Antichrist.

In addition, Paul says the temple must be rebuilt in 2 Thess. 2. Therefore, it seems we should be looking for a 3rd Jewish temple.

 

[eclipsenow]

You have not answered the fundamental points I raised, but have just restated your own view without even addressing my points. I'm sorry, but you're ignoring the fact that the disciples asked Jesus a very specific question about a very specific temple: the one they were looking at there and then. As history shows, that temple was destroyed in AD70, as predicted, with not one stone sitting on another.

When you can address this fundamental question I might take your view more seriously. Until then, futurists are just reading what they want to in this passage.

Not only that but all your 'timetables' are an attempt to understand our times, right? When the AntiChrist might do this or that, and when the Lord might return? How does that gel with a simple reading of the end of Matthew 24?


Matthew 24 says:
///36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away..... 42 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.///
So how are we to stay ready? By continuing to trust in him and obey him! It's the same as 1 Thess 5:
///let us be sober, putting on faith and love as a breastplate, and the hope of salvation as a helmet. 9 For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.///

 

[Interplanner]

It would be great to get 15K responses to appeals to Christians to get out the word of justification through Christ. What does it say about us that there is so much interest in this compared to other solid pursuits?

--Inter

 

[Interplanner]

To Achilles,
I think if you were more familiar with what occurred in the 6th decade you would see what kind of abomination was meant and why it desolated Jerusalem. Mt 23 already says, in a time-lapsed manner, that the temple was already left (to Israel) desolate. What is there in Mt. 23 about Judaism that would warrant such a declaration? If you pursue that, you will be much closer to the unfortunate intended meaning.

To ponder the mood of Mt. 23, we also have more insight as to why the disciples would ask their next questions. Subtext: wow, this institution is really corrupt and miserable; so Jesus, isn't it going to be all amazing and sparkling and beautiful soon because of the kingdom you keep talking about? Isn't 'normal' history going to end and all the new things we've been expecting about to happen? Ie, it was very hard for them to let go of how they understood prophecy in Judaism and to see that something dynamic and living and vital was about to happen (in the Gospel events). For that matter, wasn't it still hard for them at that time to accept that He would die and be raised?

--Inter

 

[eclipsenow]

To ponder the mood of Mt. 23, we also have more insight as to why the disciples would ask their next questions. Subtext: wow, this institution is really corrupt and miserable; so Jesus, isn't it going to be all amazing and sparkling and beautiful soon because of the kingdom you keep talking about? Isn't 'normal' history going to end and all the new things we've been expecting about to happen? Ie, it was very hard for them to let go of how they understood prophecy in Judaism and to see that something dynamic and living and vital was about to happen (in the Gospel events). For that matter, wasn't it still hard for them at that time to accept that He would die and be raised?

--Inter

Important questions! To the disciples, the end of the temple had to mean the 'end of the age'. And there are hints of a new age about to start, hints that go back to ancient prophecies. But here's the thing. Acts 2 says they had entered the new age when the Holy Spirit as given the church. Peter declares that is the Last Days! If only I had more time to trace the use of terms for 'ages' in the Old Testament as well. I suspect that much of what we read into the OT as 'millennial' is either heaven itself, or the age we are currently in. Because that's the strict 2 age model the New Testament presents to us.

 

[AndreWard]

Important questions! To the disciples, the end of the temple had to mean the 'end of the age'. And there are hints of a new age about to start, hints that go back to ancient prophecies. But here's the thing. Acts 2 says they had entered the new age when the Holy Spirit as given the church. Peter declares that is the Last Days! If only I had more time to trace the use of terms for 'ages' in the Old Testament as well. I suspect that much of what we read into the OT as 'millennial' is either heaven itself, or the age we are currently in. Because that's the strict 2 age model the New Testament presents to us.

The final battle
At the time of Jesus his followers had begun thinking of the world as being divided into two ages:the present evil age and the age to come,which would follow the apperance of the Messiah.The Followers were eagarly awaiting the future age in which God would decisivley defeat evil, fullfill all his promises and restore his people.
With the coming of Jesus The Messiah this future time of blessing arrived.Jesus defeated Satan and his forces on the cross,the holy spirt has been poured out on Gods people and the gospel of the kingdom is being preached around the world.Yet everything is not perfect.Gods people still suffer. Sin,evil and Death still remain.The kingdom of God has indeed arrived and begun to spread,yet the FINAL victory remains in the future.

 

[eclipsenow]

The final battle
At the time of Jesus his followers had begun thinking of the world as being divided into two ages:the present evil age and the age to come,which would follow the apperance of the Messiah.The Followers were eagarly awaiting the future age in which God would decisivley defeat evil, fullfill all his promises and restore his people.
With the coming of Jesus The Messiah this future time of blessing arrived.Jesus defeated Satan and his forces on the cross,the holy spirt has been poured out on Gods people and the gospel of the kingdom is being preached around the world.Yet everything is not perfect.Gods people still suffer. Sin,evil and Death still remain.The kingdom of God has indeed arrived and begun to spread,yet the FINAL victory remains in the future.

That is a nice summary of the Eschatological Tension or 'now and not yet' tension of these Last Days in which we live. Here's a snippet of writing I'm trying to flesh out a bit. Any verse references that add to this argument would be appreciated!

****

The prophecies about Christ and Christians are fulfilled in Eschatological Tension, 'now and not yet'. We are now the kingdom of God, but not yet fully revealed. We are now seated in heaven reigning with Christ (Ephesians 2) but not yet physically reigning over this world. We now have every spiritual blessing in the heavenly realms, but at times it does not feel like it. We are now already citizens of heaven, "royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God" but are still on a pilgrimage journey there.

As such, we dimly reflect the future reality of the Kingdom of God. It's not as simple as the Roman Catholic church claiming that their people and buildings and schools are the Kingdom of God. That's over-realised; grasping at future promises and trying to install them now. Instead we see the Kingdom of God is both an expected future reality in Paradise (the New Heavens and New Earth) where God's perfect reign is uncontested, and everything is eternal and exists forever in perfect harmony with our King. THAT is the Kingdom. That is what we pray for in the Lord's prayer, "Your kingdom come! Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven!" Yet there is a present reality in which we represent or reflect the Kingdom as we let Jesus reign in our hearts. We already *own* all the promises, like a bride that has just been married but has not yet been to the wedding reception, let alone experienced married family life. We await the wedding feast of the Lamb! We are already in the Kingdom of God, but not yet. But not yet.

 

[Achilles6129]

You have not answered the fundamental points I raised, but have just restated your own view without even addressing my points. I'm sorry, but you're ignoring the fact that the disciples asked Jesus a very specific question about a very specific temple: the one they were looking at there and then. As history shows, that temple was destroyed in AD70, as predicted, with not one stone sitting on another.

I did answer - perhaps you didn't see what I was saying. Matthew records a part of Christ's answer to the disciples. Luke records a different part of Christ's answer to the disciples. Matthew's record is referring to eschatological events - i.e., the events of the end. In other words, Matthew's record skips over the disciples' first question, and answers their second question. Luke's record, on the other hand, directly answers both questions.

It is just a matter of what each evangelist chose to record.

When you can address this fundamental question I might take your view more seriously. Until then, futurists are just reading what they want to in this passage.

Not at all. Here are some indications the answer is concerning eschatological events:

"6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet." Mt. 24:6

Christ specifically places 'wars and rumours of wars' before the end, indicating he is speaking of eschatology, not the destruction of the temple.

"14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." Mt. 24:14

After the gospel of the kingdom is preached in all the world, the end comes. By 70 AD the gospel had not been preached to all the world. That will be the two witnesses' job (in my opinion).

v. 15 - The Romans did not place the abomination of desolation. This is specifically mentioned as the Antichrist's act in Dan. 9:27.

"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

As horrific as the events of 70 AD were, are we to believe that they constituted the greatest affliction that the world had ever seen? Surely the events of the Holocaust and other events of the 20th century were greater than the calamities of the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

vv. 29-31 are clearly speaking of the Second Coming.

Ergo, it is an eschatological discourse.

To Achilles,
I think if you were more familiar with what occurred in the 6th decade you would see what kind of abomination was meant and why it desolated Jerusalem. Mt 23 already says, in a time-lapsed manner, that the temple was already left (to Israel) desolate. What is there in Mt. 23 about Judaism that would warrant such a declaration? If you pursue that, you will be much closer to the unfortunate intended meaning.

To ponder the mood of Mt. 23, we also have more insight as to why the disciples would ask their next questions. Subtext: wow, this institution is really corrupt and miserable; so Jesus, isn't it going to be all amazing and sparkling and beautiful soon because of the kingdom you keep talking about? Isn't 'normal' history going to end and all the new things we've been expecting about to happen? Ie, it was very hard for them to let go of how they understood prophecy in Judaism and to see that something dynamic and living and vital was about to happen (in the Gospel events). For that matter, wasn't it still hard for them at that time to accept that He would die and be raised?
--Inter

So then, what is the abomination of desolation? It cannot be referring to the Romans in 70 AD, as they destroyed the temple - the abomination of desolation is set up in the temple (per Christ's words and per Daniel 9:27). It is referring to an eschatological event caused by the Antichrist:

"27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’[h] In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple[j] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him. " Dan. 9:27 (NIV)

 

[eclipsenow]

I did answer - perhaps you didn't see what I was saying. Matthew records a part of Christ's answer to the disciples. Luke records a different part of Christ's answer to the disciples. Matthew's record is referring to eschatological events - i.e., the events of the end. In other words, Matthew's record skips over the disciples' first question, and answers their second question. Luke's record, on the other hand, directly answers both questions.

Sorry old pal, but Matthew DOES NOT skip over the disciples first question, as the parts in bold clearly show.

24 Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2“Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” 3As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”
If you were right, then everything in black would not be there. But you're wrong, and it IS there. Deal with it.

"14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." Mt. 24:14

After the gospel of the kingdom is preached in all the world, the end comes. By 70 AD the gospel had not been preached to all the world. That will be the two witnesses' job (in my opinion).

But how does this all deal with Jesus saying we will NOT know when he is going to return? Isn't Jesus contradicting himself now, as he then says no one will know, and everyone will be saying 'peace and safety' just like in the days of Noah? Which is it... a time of war before he returns, or a time of peace and prosperity? See, you can't have it both ways. The Partial Preterist would appeal to the historicity of the many wars and rebellions just prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. That's one perspective. But Jesus jumps between talking about the end of the temple and the end of the age. So be careful and read it with that in mind.

Pay attention to "These things" (end of the temple, which would occur in Jesus generation) and "those days" (shift in the Greek which refers to the future return of Christ, the date of which we haven't got a clue about!)

"14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." Mt. 24:14

Keep in mind that earlier in the gospel of Matthew Jesus has specifically told the disciples to declare the kingdom of God to Israel specifically, and NOT the gentiles. (Matthew 10:5-8).

Then Jesus said that they would not finish proclaiming the gospel message to Israel until the Lord comes in his glory.
Matthew 10
"23 When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes."
There is a whole view in Sydney Anglican's that says YES, there remains a Judgement Day of the Lord's Return, but that we have to be very careful here because it may be that in these specific verses something else is being discussed. Jesus coming before the Almighty Ancient of Days on his throne of glory, as the cloud rider, may indeed be something different to his return. It may be his ascension into the Father's glory after the cross!!

After the gospel of the kingdom is preached in all the world, the end comes. By 70 AD the gospel had not been preached to all the world. That will be the two witnesses' job (in my opinion).

If it's the END of the temple, then the gospel HAD gone out into all the world, from a biblical perspective. (Not a geographic one). What do I mean by that? Jesus specifically targets Israel in Matthew 10, but by Acts 2 the disciples are given power to send the gospel out into all the world, beyond Israel. By the time Paul is preaching the gospel in Rome, I think that's pretty much 'all the world'. Then the Jews (largely lead by false military messiah's!) kept rebelling against Rome, and this ironically lead to the end of everything Jewish! The Romans couldn't stand it any more and went in, burnt the temple down, took much of the treasure but some of it melted and dripped down into the drainage system. The Romans had to dig it apart, stone by stone, to get at this gold. While the temple burned the soldiers sacrificed to the Eagle standard of Titus, an abomination that caused the desolation of the temple.

All of this happened before that generation passed away, just as Jesus said it would.

v. 15 - The Romans did not place the abomination of desolation. This is specifically mentioned as the Antichrist's act in Dan. 9:27.

Well I suggest you interpret the Old Testament by the power of the New, not the other way around! The Daniel 9 passage does NOT dominate the New Testament, it's the other way around. I know 2 views of Daniel 9, and none of them indicate anything about the 'end times'. (Which we've been in for 2000 years since Acts 2).

"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

Ever heard of Jesus use of hyperbole? Hate your mother and father, cut off your hand, etc? But, in a sense, there was a great tribulation against the Jews that was truly terrible.

As horrific as the events of 70 AD were, are we to believe that they constituted the greatest affliction that the world had ever seen? Surely the events of the Holocaust and other events of the 20th century were greater than the calamities of the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

vv. 29-31 are clearly speaking of the Second Coming.

Ergo, it is an eschatological discourse.



So then, what is the abomination of desolation? It cannot be referring to the Romans in 70 AD, as they destroyed the temple - the abomination of desolation is set up in the temple (per Christ's words and per Daniel 9:27). It is referring to an eschatological event caused by the Antichrist:

"27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’[h] In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple[j] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him. " Dan. 9:27 (NIV)[/quote]

 

[Justme]

Hi eclipsenow;

Sorry old pal, but Matthew DOES NOT skip over the disciples first question, as the parts in bold clearly show.

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

Yes, Jesus was pointing to the buildings they had just walked out of so there can be no doubt that the WHEN of the temple being destroyed is in there.
However, something more important to ponder is a very simple statement by Jesus which appears in all three accounts, "The heavens will be shaken". A quick look in Hebrews 12 shows us that God will shake the heavens only one more time and that one more time will be when He establishes the kingdom of God, when the kingdom becomes fully functional.

So people have to reconcile that into the mix of 'things' that will happen.

The heavens will shake.......

Justme

 

[eclipsenow]

Hi eclipsenow;



Yes, Jesus was pointing to the buildings they had just walked out of so there can be no doubt that the WHEN of the temple being destroyed is in there.
However, something more important to ponder is a very simple statement by Jesus which appears in all three accounts, "The heavens will be shaken". A quick look in Hebrews 12 shows us that God will shake the heavens only one more time and that one more time will be when He establishes the kingdom of God, when the kingdom becomes fully functional.

So people have to reconcile that into the mix of 'things' that will happen.

The heavens will shake.......

Justme

I can reconcile the 2 sets of statements. Can you? Jesus predicts the fall of the temple, which is, after all, a result of the spiritual revolution the cross brings to God's kingdom. That is the 'these things' Jesus is peaking about, AD70. Then Jesus talks about 'that day'. His return! So the heavens WILL be shaken. When he returns. 2 different answers to 2 different questions that the disciples mistakenly thought were related to the one event. Just because they made that mistake does not mean we have to as well.

 

[Achilles6129]

Sorry eclipsenow, but I totally disagree with your view of Matthew 24.

 

[Steve Petersen]

No option for 'Ain't Happenin.'

 

[Achilles6129]

No option for 'Ain't Happenin.'

So you don't believe that Christ is going to return, eh?

 

[Steve Petersen]

So you don't believe that Christ is going to return, eh?

Nope. If it didn't happen during the Holocaust, it never will.