At the forefront of Jesus' mind when He gave the Olivet Discourse

[Zao is life]

THE OLIVET DISCOURSE​

Addressed to: The disciples of Jesus (Luke 21:8; Matthew 24:1; Mark 13:1-4).

Subjects:
(i) The coming destruction of the temple (Matthew 24:1-2; Mark 13:1-2; Luke 21:5-6).

(ii) The coming of the Son of man (Matthew 24:3, 30, 36-39; Mark 13:26, 32, 35; Luke 21:27, 31, 36).

(iii) The coming of the kingdom of Christ (Matthew 24:14 & Matthew 25:1; Mark 13:10; Luke 21:31).

(iv) The tribulation of the disciples of Jesus in the days leading up to the coming of the Son of Man (Matthew 24:9-13; Mark 13:9, 11-13; Luke 21:12-19 & 27-28).

(v) The coming distress of the inhabitants of Jerusalem at the time of the coming of the wrath of God upon Jerusalem (Luke 21:20-24) *

* Whereas Luke uses the words distress and wrath to describe (v) above (it's notable that Luke does not use the word tribulation to describe it), neither Matthew nor Mark use the word wrath in their records of the Olivet Discourse, but only the words tribulation or affliction.

* The reader of Matthew’s record of the Olivet Discourse who is NOT being intellectually dishonest with himself will be able to see and acknowledge the fact that Matthew’s record, after introducing the theme of the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus in Matthew 24:9, joins verses 9 through 31 together into one long passage by employing the words, “then”, “and”, “but”, “wherefore/therefore”, “for”, and “immediately after”.

Complete list of New Testament mentions of persecution and tribulation:-​

1. Persecution

(i) Of Jesus: John 5:16

(ii) Of the woman who gave birth to the Messiah: Revelation 12:13

(iii) Of Christians:-

Matthew 5: 19 & 12; John 15:20; Acts 22:4; Acts 26:11; 1 Corinthians 4:12; 1 Corinthians 15:9; 2 Corinthians 4:9; Galatians 1: 13 & 23; Galatians 4:29; Galatians 5:11.

(iv) Of unbelievers:- None.

2. Tribulation

(i) Of apostles and Christians:-

Matthew 13:21 (Parallel: Mark 4:17); Matthew 24:9, 21 & 29 (Parallel Mark 13:19, 24); John 16:33; Acts 11:19; Acts 14:22; Acts 20:23; Romans 5:3; Romans 8:35; Romans 12:12; 2 Corinthians 1:4, 6 & 8; 2 Corinthians 2:4; 2 Corinthians 4:8; 2 Corinthians 4:17; 2 Corinthians 6:4; 2 Corinthians 7:4-5; 2 Corinthians 8:2; Ephesians 3:13; Philippians 1:16; Philippians 4:14; Colossians 1:24; 1 Thessalonians 1:6; 1 Thessalonians 3:3; 1 Thessalonians 3: 4 & 7; 2 Thessalonians 1:4, 6-7; 2 Timothy 1:8; 2 Timothy 3:11; 2 Timothy 4:5; Hebrews 10:32-33; 1 Peter 5:9; Revelation 1:9; Revelation 2:9-10, 22; Revelation 7:14.

(ii) Of unbelievers:-

Romans 2:9 (everyone who does evil); 2 Thessalonians 1:6 (tribulation coming upon the wicked world as repayment for bringing tribulation upon the saints).

3. Great Tribulation (Greek: megas thlipsis)

Note: Only three times in the entire New Testament do we find the Greek word megas (great) employed to describe the intensity of the tribulation (Greek: thlipsis).

(i) Of Christians:-

Revelation 2:22 (those who follow Jezebel's doctrines).
Revelation 7:14 (the multitude of saints who came out of great tribulation).

(ii) Identity of victims disputed by Christians:-

Matthew 24:21 (tribulation is mentioned in Matthew 24:9, 21-22 & 29, where after introducing the theme of the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus in Matthew 24:9, Matthew's gospel joins the passage from verse 9 through 31 together into one long passage by employing the words, “then”, “and”, “but”, “wherefore/therefore”, “for”, and “immediately after”).

AT THE FOREFRONT OF JESUS' MIND ​

IMO this shows that the theme at the forefront of Jesus’ mind when He gave the Olivet Discourse was clearly NOT the coming destruction of the temple, nor was it the distress that was to be experienced by the inhabitants of Jerusalem when the wrath of God was to come upon Jerusalem in the day it was was surrounded by armies. At the forefront of His mind was the tribulation that would be experienced by the saints in the days leading up to the coming of the Son of man.

I believe the same can be said regarding the Lord's Apocalypse.

 

[Hammster]

The theme at the forefront of Jesus’ mind when He gave the Olivet Discourse was clearly NOT the coming destruction of the temple, nor was it the distress that was to be experienced by the inhabitants of Jerusalem when the wrath of God was to come upon Jerusalem in the day it was was surrounded by armies.

It clearly was. The destruction of the temple was proof that the old convent was gone. It was proof of the divorce of Israel because of unfaithfulness.

 

[Zao is life]

It clearly was. The destruction of the temple was proof that the old convent was gone. It was proof of the divorce of Israel because of unfaithfulness.

It's really sad that so many Christians are so fixated on the dead corpse that was the post crucifixion temple that they either forget or have never been aware of the fact that the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus was proof that the old covenant was gone. It's still the only proof, and always will be the only proof. The temple meant nothing. It had meant nothing for 40 years. That's why it was destroyed by the Romans.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

It's really sad that so many Christians are so fixated on the dead corpse that was the post crucifixion temple that they either forget or have never been aware of the fact that the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus was proof that the old covenant was gone. It's still the only proof, and always will be the only proof. The temple meant nothing. It had meant nothing for 40 years. That's why it was destroyed by the Romans.

I think it meant a great deal to unrepentant Israel. Their only proof was the Temple. As the Roman's continued to conquer surrounding cities ,Jews fled to Jerusalem for safety. Unbeknownst to them God was not on their side. Those in the Body heeded to Christ's warning and fled to the mountains. This was what Jesus Christ of Nazareth described as the " end of the age". Very significant.
Blessings

 

[Hammster]

It's really sad that so many Christians are so fixated on the dead corpse that was the post crucifixion temple that they either forget or have never been aware of the fact that the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus was proof that the old covenant was gone. It's still the only proof, and always will be the only proof. The temple meant nothing. It had meant nothing for 40 years. That's why it was destroyed by the Romans.

Well, as I’ve always said, when an ad hominem is used, it means I’ve won. Or at least struck a hard blow.

 

[Zao is life]

Well, as I’ve always said, when an ad hominem is used, it means I’ve won. Or at least struck a hard blow.

An ad hominem does not refer to the beliefs of a whole group of people.

Ad hominem: "Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

Ad hominem - Wikipedia

I was stating the fact that it's really sad that the argument produced by the belief of so many Christians ignores the only sign that the Old Covenant was gone forever.

There is nothing personal in that, nothing attacking "the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person.

Your false accusation against me in response is an ad hominem attack.

 

[Timtofly]

It's really sad that so many Christians are so fixated on the dead corpse that was the post crucifixion temple that they either forget or have never been aware of the fact that the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus was proof that the old covenant was gone. It's still the only proof, and always will be the only proof. The temple meant nothing. It had meant nothing for 40 years. That's why it was destroyed by the Romans.

Matthew 27:54

"Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God."

The Romans understood. Not those who actually had Jesus crucified. They rejected the Atonement all the way to the very end. Many still to this day.

A lot of emphasis is placed on the first century. More of Israel have rejected the Atonement in the last 1991 years than all those in the first century.

 

[Hammster]

An ad hominem does not refer to the beliefs of a whole group of people.

Ad hominem: "Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

Ad hominem - Wikipedia

I was stating the fact that it's really sad that the argument produced by the belief of so many Christians ignores the only sign that the Old Covenant was gone forever.

There is nothing personal in that, nothing attacking "the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person.

Your false accusation against me in response is an ad hominem attack.

Since it was directed towards me, it was ad hominem.

Now, if you want to actually discuss what I said, let me know.

 

[Zao is life]

Since it was directed towards me, it was ad hominem.

Now, if you want to actually discuss what I said, let me know.

You made a doctrinal statement. It was a doctrinal statement. You weren't opening up a debate about it. So I made a statement too, expressing my dismay that many Christians actually believe that doctrine that you expressed in your doctrinal statement, which was not a personal attack against you, but an argument against the doctrine in the form of my expression of my dismay that many Christians believe it.

I'm not sure what you wanted to discuss, especially since all you've subsequently done is to falsely accuse me (now twice) of making a personal attack against you. If you fill me in about what you would like to discuss, then I will understand.

 

[Hammster]

I'm not sure what you wanted to discuss, especially since all you've subsequently done is to falsely accuse me (now twice) of making a personal attack against you. If you fill me in about what you would like to discuss, then I will understand.

It clearly was.

Here’s where the debate starts.

The destruction of the temple was proof that the old convent was gone. It was proof of the divorce of Israel because of unfaithfulness.

Here’s the reason.

 

[Zao is life]

It clearly was. The destruction of the temple was proof that the old convent was gone. It was proof of the divorce of Israel because of unfaithfulness.

I will ask one question regarding your above doctrinal statement and depending on what your answer is, I will know whether or not I should be responding to your posts at all henceforth.

Was the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead not proof that the old covenant was gone?

 

[Hammster]

I will ask one question regarding your above doctrinal statement and depending on what your answer is, I will know whether or not I should be responding to your posts at all henceforth.

Was the insurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead not proof that the old covenant was gone?

It was evidence for the new covenant. There was one last aspect of the old covenant that had to take place, though, and that was the cursing. If God had let Israel go unpunished, He would be unjust.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I think it meant a great deal to unrepentant Israel. Their only proof was the Temple. As the Roman's continued to conquer surrounding cities ,Jews fled to Jerusalem for safety. Unbeknownst to them God was not on their side. Those in the Body heeded to Christ's warning and fled to the mountains. This was what Jesus Christ of Nazareth described as the " end of the age". Very significant.
Blessings

I completely disagree. The year 70 AD was not the end of the age that Jesus talked about. At the end of the age, people will no longer get married and they will no longer die. And all people will be judged/rewarded at the end of the age. Tell me how that occurred in 70 AD.

Please tell me how you interpret these passages:

Matthew 13:47 “Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. 48 When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. 49 This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous 50 and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

How exactly did the above occur in 70 AD? Please be as specific as possible.

Luke 20:34 Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.

Please tell me how you reconcile the above passage with your beliefs. What resurrection occurred in 70 AD and who were the ones who were resurrected? Why did people continue to get married and continue to die if 70 AD was the end of the age?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I completely disagree. The year 70 AD was not the end of the age that Jesus talked about. At the end of the age, people will no longer get married and they will no longer die. And all people will be judged/rewarded at the end of the age. Tell me how that occurred in 70 AD.

Please tell me how you interpret these passages:

Matthew 13:47 “Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. 48 When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. 49 This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous 50 and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

How exactly did the above occur in 70 AD? Please be as specific as possible.

Luke 20:34 Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.

Please tell me how you reconcile the above passage with your beliefs. What resurrection occurred in 70 AD and who were the ones who were resurrected? Why did people continue to get married and continue to die if 70 AD was the end of the age?

There are different "ages" all throughout history.This is no different. What you are describing is the new heaven and earth. Beyond our "earthly " comprehension. This is the last day, judgment day when all will be resurrected, some to everlasting life and some to everlasting condemnation. This has not happened yet. Every tear will be wiped away.

 

[Timtofly]

It was evidence for the new covenant. There was one last aspect of the old covenant that had to take place, though, and that was the cursing. If God had let Israel go unpunished, He would be unjust.

Unpunished? The 10 northern tribes where sort of obliterated into history. Any who helped them received a blessing, but they themselves would be the outcast until the Second Coming.

That Judah and Benjamin carried on was for the sake of the birth of Jesus. As Daniel pointed out even Messiah was cut off.

"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined."

Not only was Christ cut off, but it would not look great for Israel for a long time. Gabriel left Daniel hanging without even the last week defined, and only desolation and destruction.

 

[Zao is life]

A lot of emphasis is placed on the first century. More of Israel have rejected the Atonement in the last 1991 years than all those in the first century.

Exactly.

 

[Zao is life]

Galatians 3
13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us (for it is written, "Cursed is everyone having been hanged on a tree");

All Christians please understand,

Christ was cursed for our sins, the Jews' sins and the sins of the whole world.

When Jesus died, the old covenant that was based on the law died with Him:

Jeremiah 31
31 Behold, the days come, says the LORD, that I will cut a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah,
32 not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which covenant of Mine they broke, although I was a husband to them, says the LORD;
33 but this shall be the covenant that I will cut with the house of Israel: After those days, says the LORD, I will put My law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
34 And they shall no more teach each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, Know the LORD; for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sins no more.

Matthew 26
28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Matthew 27
50 And crying again with a loud voice, Jesus released His spirit.
51 And, behold! The veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. And the earth quaked, and the rocks were sheared.

The building that stood in Jerusalem that once was the house of God, was the house of God no more. The Holy Spirit that was promised by Jesus was given to the church on the Day of Pentecost, 10 days after He ascended into heaven.

Since then the Church has been the Temple of God, and from the time of Jesus death when the veil in the temple separating the most holy place from the holy place was torn in two, the building that stood in Jerusalem which once had been the Temple of God carried no spiritual significance whatsoever.

The Old Covenant was gone and was no more from 40 years before the building that stood in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans.

The Jews who do not believe in Jesus, either those who lived in 70 A.D, or those who have lived since 70 A.D, did not and do not see the destruction of the BUILDING in Jerusalem as a sign that the old Covenant is gone.

To falsely claim that the old covenant remained in effect until A.D 70 and that the destruction of the temple in A.D 70 was a sign to the unbelieving Jews that the old covenant was gone and that they and they alone were cursed of God, is unscriptural non-Christian nonsense. It's a false claim.

To claim that it was to "show them" that "they were cursed of God" is nonsense, racist and false. Jesus says to Jew and Gentile:

John 3
18 He who believes on Him is not condemned, but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.

The curse upon Jew and Gentile is the rejection of Jesus, which came into effect in A.D 30, NOT A.D 70.

And through His apostle Paul Gentiles who belong to Christ are warned:

Romans 11
22 Behold then the kindness, and the severity of God; on those having fallen, severity; but on you, kindness, if you continue in the kindness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.
23 And those also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in. For God is able to graft them in again.

The Jews who DID believe in Jesus in A.D 70 and the Jews who DO believe in Jesus see the death and resurrection of the Messiah as THE (only) sign that the old covenant is gone.

(except those Jewish and Gentile Christians who want Jesus + the law of Moses and who cannot let go of the law upon which the old covenant was based).

 

[Hammster]

Unpunished? The 10 northern tribes where sort of obliterated into history. Any who helped them received a blessing, but they themselves would be the outcast until the Second Coming.

That Judah and Benjamin carried on was for the sake of the birth of Jesus. As Daniel pointed out even Messiah was cut off.

"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined."

Not only was Christ cut off, but it would not look great for Israel for a long time. Gabriel left Daniel hanging without even the last week defined, and only desolation and destruction.

And after they crucified Christ, the temple was destroyed, never to be rebuilt. The old covenant was gone.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

There are different "ages" all throughout history.This is no different.

Why are you trying to confuse things by saying that? All we're focused on here is two ages that Jesus talked about: this temporal age and the eternal age to come. He never spoke of a new covenant age or old covenant age.

What you are describing is the new heaven and earth. Beyond our "earthly " comprehension. This is the last day, judgment day when all will be resurrected, some to everlasting life and some to everlasting condemnation. This has not happened yet. Every tear will be wiped away.

And that is what Jesus was talking about when He talked about the end of the age. He talked about the end of this temporal age when people die and contrasted it with the eternal age to come of the new heaven and new earth when "there shall be no more death" (Rev 21:4). When He referenced "this age" in Luke 20:34-36 it was the same age as "the age" when He referenced the end of the age. It is "the age to come" which references the future eternal new heaven and new earth. The eternal age to come will not arrive until the end of the age ("the age" = this temporal age).

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Why are you trying to confuse things by saying that? All we're focused on here is two ages that Jesus talked about: this temporal age and the eternal age to come. He never spoke of a new covenant age or old covenant age.

And that is what Jesus was talking about when He talked about the end of the age. He talked about the end of this temporal age when people die and contrasted it with the eternal age to come of the new heaven and new earth when "there shall be no more death" (Rev 21:4). When He referenced "this age" in Luke 20:34-36 it was the same age as "the age" when He referenced the end of the age. It is "the age to come" which references the future eternal new heaven and new earth. The eternal age to come will not arrive until the end of the age ("the age" = this temporal age).

Jeremiah 31:31-34
31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

This is the New Covenant through Jesus Christ of Nazareth.