Keep in mind that I do believe Matthew 24:15-22 was fulfilled in 70 AD and Luke 21:20-24 is a parallel passage. I understand the point you're making here, but the problem is that you have no way of making a convincing argument that Matthew 24:29-31 has already occurred. There was no gathering of the elect by the angels in 70 AD. And, if you see it as referring to people being saved from that point on, then that doesn't make sense since people were being saved before 70 AD.Sorry, but your assumptions are out of whack. The whole thing started in chapter 23. He was passing judgement on Israel. He said the temple would be destroyed. The disciples asked when it would be, and what to look for. He repeatedly said “you”. (You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end.
— Matthew 24:6
“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),
— Matthew 24:15
But pray that your flight will not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath.
— Matthew 24:20
Behold, I have told you in advance.
— Matthew 24:25)
And one more “you”.
“Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
— Matthew 24:32-34
Now, had He said “they” in those places, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. But it’s clear that the events He described were for that generation, and that they needed to be aware.
Keep in mind that I do believe Matthew 24:15-22 was fulfilled in 70 AD
Why don't you get clarification from me about how I interpret those verses before assuming things and saying things like this?You problably don't realize it, but you are arguing in favor of Preterism, while at the same time arguing against it, assuming you are correct about the timing of Matthew 24:15-22. And here are the main reasons why. Not according to me but according to the texts involved.
Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
The first question we must ask ourselves, after the trib of what days? Anyone reading ch 24 can see that the only other place in that ch where it specifically mentions a tribulation of days is found in verse 21, the same verse you indicated was fulfilled in 70 AD. The fact verse 29 starts out as such---Immediately after the tribulation of those days---that means in order to agree with your interpretation of verse 21, verse 29 is meaning immediately after 70 AD. Which then presents a cpl of more problems concerning your interpretation of verse 30 and 31 that follows.
The fact you have those verses meaning the 2nd coming in the end of this age, that has to mean a 2000 year gap or more between verse 29 and verses 30 and 31, in order for the text to agree with your interpretation of verses 30 and 31.
Please do not say things like this to me. I also agree with the text. I just disagree with you in my interpretation of the text.I OTOH simply agree with the text
This is talking about things that would happen in and around Jerusalem in particular. Nothing ever happened in Jerusalem as bad as what happened there around 70 AD. Are you aware of the kind of things that happened? Many atrocities happened there to the Jews who did not heed Christ's warning to flee (or who were not able to flee). So, the elect Jesus was referring to there were the Christians who were in Jerusalem.and conclude that the trib of those days did not end in 70 AD, but end in the end of this age prior to the 2nd coming. How can anything involving 70 AD, even as bad as it was, be describing the following---such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be?
Look at some of the things involved during this great trib in question.
Matthew 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
How can the elect here not be meaning the saved in the church? In what way was the ending of 70 AD for their sake, when all of them made it to safety before anything ever happened to them?
This describes the time period after what happened in 70 AD.Matthew 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
How can nothing in Matthew 24 relate to what happened in 70 AD? One of the questions Jesus was asked was specifically about when the temple buildings would be destroyed. Do you think that He didn't answer that question? Or that the answer is only shown in Luke 21 and not Matthew 24 (or Mark 13)?What does any of this have to do with what happened in 70 AD? Zero, that's what.
Exactly. Why did it take you this long to mention this? Instead, you gave the impression that you didn't recall me explaining this before, which I have several times (not always directly to you, though).If I recall, I'm thinking the way you get around verse 29 is by arguing that there are two tribs meant in the Discourse, and that the trib of those days meant in verse 29 is not meaning the one meant in verse 21 but is meaning the latter.
Because it relates specifically to Jerusalem and not the whole world.Yet, like I pointed out, as bad as 70 AD was, how can verse 21 be describing that event via this---such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be--especially the fact you are Amil and take Revelation 20:7-9 to be meaning prior to the 2nd coming, as an example?
Because the context indicates that He was talking about things that would happen in and around Jerusalem. Again, one of the questions that He was asked was about when the temple buildings standing at that time would be destroyed. How can you interpret His response as if He never answered that question? Or at least that His response was not recorded in Matthew 24?Assuming you are correct about Revelation 20:7-9, which you very well could be, if you then compare those verses to that of 70 AD, why couldn't Revelation 20:7-9 be describing Matthew 24:21 instead of 70 AD---such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be?
At this point it looks like it’s an argument from silence. I don’t see where the captivity has to end before His coming.That's obviously a logical deduction, the fact that it has to end eventually, otherwise one has to conclude that the captivity is neverending, which would be ludicrous. Why is it not reasonable that the times of the Gentiles include the time of the captivity into all nations? Did not Jesus say in the Discourse that this generation can't pass away until all is fulfilled first? How can that not also include the times of the Gentiles being fulfilled first, before this generation can pass away?
I never made an argument for Rome falling apart. That came later. Every nation that God used to judge Israel eventually was judged themselves, and they are no more. I also never said anything about Israel falling apart. But they were judged just as certainly as they were judged in the OT. That’s what Jesus is talking about in Matt 23 and 24.Rome did not fall apart nor was Rome judged in 70AD. Not even Israel fell apart. That happened when the Greeks and Romans took over, and allowed Edomites control of Israel. Not even symbolically did any government fall apart.
Rome did not fall apart into the 10 toes during the 70AD invasion. You have to at least get to the ten toes before the Second Coming. That would be the symbolic national destruction in the least symbolic use.
That’s not an eschatology subject.Can vaccine passports kickstart the economy? The Economist
.
The destruction of the Temple was the final sign of the end of the old covenant. So making one more announcement about the scope of the kingdom doesn’t seem out of place at all.Keep in mind that I do believe Matthew 24:15-22 was fulfilled in 70 AD and Luke 21:20-24 is a parallel passage. I understand the point you're making here, but the problem is that you have no way of making a convincing argument that Matthew 24:29-31 has already occurred. There was no gathering of the elect by the angels in 70 AD. And, if you see it as referring to people being saved from that point on, then that doesn't make sense since people were being saved before 70 AD.
Also, in Matthew 24:37-39, Jesus compared what will happen to unbelievers at His second coming to what happened to unbelievers with the flood. He said that it destroyed them all and that the same would happen at His coming (not a flood, but that all unbelievers would be killed). How does that have anything to do with 70 AD? To me, He was clearly talking about the same thing Peter wrote about in 2 Peter 3:3-13 when Peter also compared the flood to what will happen when Christ returns.
That’s not an eschatology subject.
For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,
— Matthew 24:37-38
It doesn’t say anything about anyone being destroyed at His second coming.
Which has nothing to do with The Mark of the Beast™.In your mind, Nero was the antichrist, and Jesus "returned", (No, scratch that word), I meant "came" in judgment during 70 AD... no matter what we find in Revelation 11:8, or Matthew 10:5-23, or the fact that Jesus remained seated at the Father's right hand during 70 AD.
Did you watch the entire video?
Did you notice the part of the video where it talked about people being required to give proof of vaccination in order to work, or enjoy their freedoms?
.
And that has nothing to do with the fact that in the days of Noah, people were living normally, just like before Christ’s judgment on Israel.See the parable of the wheat and tares from Matthew 13 to understand the passage above.
The tares are "taken" first and burned in the fire, and then the wheat is gathered into the barn.
.
Because the context indicates that He was talking about things that would happen in and around Jerusalem. Again, one of the questions that He was asked was about when the temple buildings standing at that time would be destroyed. How can you interpret His response as if He never answered that question? Or at least that His response was not recorded in Matthew 24?
And that has nothing to do with the fact that in the days of Noah, people were living normally, just like before Christ’s judgment on Israel.
Right. They were living normal lives until the flood. Those who listened to Christ and fled Judaea survived.Mat 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
Mat 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Still not The Mark of the Beast™.Back to the Op.
Vaccine expert on the current COVID vaccines:
Exactly. Why did it take you this long to mention this? Instead, you gave the impression that you didn't recall me explaining this before, which I have several times (not always directly to you, though).
Right. They were living normal lives until the flood. Those who listened to Christ and fled Judaea survived.
Let’s look.Do you think Luke 21:25-28 is about 70 AD, or do you think it is about Nero?
.
Let’s look.
“There will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth dismay among nations, in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves, men fainting from fear and the expectation of the things which are coming upon the world; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
— Luke 21:25-27
Looks to me like it’s the destruction of Jerusalem.