Daniel's 70th week

[pasifika]

Not by your belief framework, but in mine (and according to history) yes....they did. Those that were oppressing them were killed in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and their oppressive power was stripped away as the entire religious system was destroyed with the Temple. The early church was free and saved by fleeing to the hills as instructed.

My question was not about Jerusalem but Thessalonians in your post #432

 

[pasifika]

The verses above that bring more context to Luke 21:28.

Those events in Luke 21:20-28.....cannot be reference to the destruction of Jerusalem or temple in first century....

Why? Because Jerusalem of old is the same place today. .. Luke 21:20-28 is not mention that Jerusalem be rebuild but to make it desolate...

The desolation of Jerusalem is always follow the second coming of Christ Not a rebuild Jerusalem as we see today after it destruction in AD 70...

 

[Al Touthentop]

What Scripture relating to "the age to come" do you relate to the new covenant period now?

The Matthew 24 prophecy was specific to a certain event. You keep comparing that Luke passage which talks about the resurrection as if it is connected. It isn't. Jesus was explaining the error of the Pharisees and told them that after the resurrection - something that is even in the future for us - would preclude marriage. Their attempt to trick him didn't work. To extrapolate it as some general rule that applies everywhere is faulty exegesis.

Neither passage is talking about some future age in general. In the Olivette discourse Jesus is explaining to his disciples exactly and specifically what will happen to bring about the final end of the old covenant age, not about the end of the world. He answered the question they asked, not by discussing a future event which they already understood (The Last Day).

The fact that he's talking about the end of that age, does not lead us to conclude anything other than that the age ended. There was an overlap between the beginning of the new age and the final end of the old age of about 40 years. Because one thing begins, that doesn't mean that at that precise moment in time the old thing wasn't still honored. But if you can't accept this, you at least have to acknowledge that the old covenant did end. So the last days of the old covenant ended and a new age began whenever you want to put the exact time of its ending.

There was a grace period while the gospel was preached and the Jews who hadn't heard or accepted the gospel were allowed to continue with the old law. Then, the temple was destroyed and there was only one covenant possible for men to enter into. It became impossible after that for anyone to obey the old law. God took away their kingdom which they had rejected anyway way back in Samuel when they asked for an earthly king.

There still is an "age" to come after the Last Day. That age begins on the day of judgement. It's an age that hasn't yet arrived. You want there only to be two ages for whatever reason. Why?

 

[sovereigngrace]

The Matthew 24 prophecy was specific to a certain event. You keep comparing that Luke passage which talks about the resurrection as if it is connected. It isn't. Jesus was explaining the error of the Pharisees and told them that after the resurrection - something that is even in the future for us - would preclude marriage. Their attempt to trick him didn't work. To extrapolate it as some general rule that applies everywhere is faulty exegesis.

Neither passage is talking about some future age in general. In the Olivette discourse Jesus is explaining to his disciples exactly and specifically what will happen to bring about the final end of the old covenant age, not about the end of the world. He answered the question they asked, not by discussing a future event which they already understood (The Last Day).

The fact that he's talking about the end of that age, does not lead us to conclude anything other than that the age ended. There was an overlap between the beginning of the new age and the final end of the old age of about 40 years. Because one thing begins, that doesn't mean that at that precise moment in time the old thing wasn't still honored. But if you can't accept this, you at least have to acknowledge that the old covenant did end. So the last days of the old covenant ended and a new age began whenever you want to put the exact time of its ending.

There was a grace period while the gospel was preached and the Jews who hadn't heard or accepted the gospel were allowed to continue with the old law. Then, the temple was destroyed and there was only one covenant possible for men to enter into. It became impossible after that for anyone to obey the old law. God took away their kingdom which they had rejected anyway way back in Samuel when they asked for an earthly king.

There still is an "age" to come after the Last Day. That age begins on the day of judgement. It's an age that hasn't yet arrived. You want there only to be two ages for whatever reason. Why?

Am I hearing you right? Are you saying that neither Matthew 24 or Luke 21 relates to the future coming of Christ and the resurrection of all men?

 

[Al Touthentop]

Those events in Luke 21:20-28.....cannot be reference to the destruction of Jerusalem or temple in first century....

Why? Because Jerusalem of old is the same place today. .. Luke 21:20-28 is not mention that Jerusalem be rebuild but to make it desolate...

The desolation of Jerusalem is always follow the second coming of Christ Not a rebuild Jerusalem as we see today after it destruction in AD 70...

Jesus said that there would be some standing there who would see this destruction. There wasn't a single stone standing, exactly as Jesus prophesied and Josephus witnessed. And this desolation prevented the law of Moses from ever being properly followed again. How is that not desolation?

 

[Al Touthentop]

Am I hearing you right? Are you saying that neither Matthew 24 or Luke 21 relates to the future coming of Christ and the resurrection of all men?

You can't even read a post and get the meaning out of it and I'm to accept your exegesis of scripture?

 

[sovereigngrace]

You can't even read a post and get the meaning out of it and I'm to accept your exegesis of scripture?

Why have you become so nasty? Can you not be pleasant?

 

[mkgal1]

My question was not about Jerusalem but Thessalonians in your post #432

Jerusalem and Thessalonica were both part of the Romans Empire in 52 AD - when Paul wrote his letter to the church @ Thessalonica. That's the context.

 

[mkgal1]

Those events in Luke 21:20-28.....cannot be reference to the destruction of Jerusalem or temple in first century....

Why? Because Jerusalem of old is the same place today. .. Luke 21:20-28 is not mention that Jerusalem be rebuild but to make it desolate...

The desolation of Jerusalem is always follow the second coming of Christ Not a rebuild Jerusalem as we see today after it destruction in AD 70...

The desolation refers to the Holy of Holies. Not only has His glory departed the sanctuary - but the entire ancient religious system was removed - taking the power from them (as was prophesied) and Jesus now "sits on the throne" in heaven. The signs Jesus spoke of did appear (and His faithful church was safe by fleeing as instructed).

 

[pasifika]

Jesus said that there would be some standing there who would see this destruction. There wasn't a single stone standing, exactly as Jesus prophesied and Josephus witnessed. And this desolation prevented the law of Moses from ever being properly followed again. How is that not desolation?

Luke 21:20 is not about AD 70, because after destruction Jerusalem rebuild again as we see today, but Luke 21:20-28 is events leading to second coming...

 

[pasifika]

Jerusalem and Thessalonica were both part of the Romans Empire in 52 AD - when Paul wrote his letter to the church @ Thessalonica. That's the context.

So I ask the did the Thessalonians received their relief as promised? When the Lord appeared in heaven with blazing fire and with angel?...

 

[mkgal1]

So I ask the did the Thessalonians received their relief as promised? When the Lord appeared in heaven with blazing fire and with angel?...

Yes. I believe Paul was truthful and inspired in his promise - and that the church at Thessalonica experienced the relief that was promised them. ISTM you have those people still waiting for that relief Paul promised them.

 

[mkgal1]

Luke 21:20 is not about AD 70, because after destruction Jerusalem rebuild again as we see today, but Luke 21:20-28 is events leading to second coming...

Where is Judea on the map today? This was a sign that His coming was near (to them):

Luke 21:21 - Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains

 

[pasifika]

The desolation refers to the Holy of Holies. Not only has His glory departed the sanctuary - but the entire ancient religious system was removed - taking the power from them (as was prophesied) and Jesus now "sits on the throne" in heaven. The signs Jesus spoke of did appear (and His faithful church was safe by fleeing as instructed).

Desolation refers to the earthly Jerusalem today...

 

[pasifika]

Where is Judea on the map today? This was a sign that His coming was near (to them):

Luke 21:21 - Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains

So where is Jerusalem of old today? Is it the same place? So as the territory of Judea....it tells you the event of the end time is in Israel

 

[mkgal1]

Desolation refers to the earthly Jerusalem today...

.....and it was proven desolate with the removal and destruction of the Temple. God dwelled with His people through the High Priest in the sanctuary (which is no longer there). The geneology records were destroyed - so none of that ancient system can be revived. Jesus is our High Priest and King (for eternity).

 

[Al Touthentop]

Why have you become so nasty? Can you not be pleasant?

Nasty? You just asked me a question I've answered on several occasions and have completely twisted what I said. What is more nasty and unpleasant when you're having a conversation with somebody than to ignore what they've said and then twist their words? I've just called you on it and you call me nasty and unpleasant.

I'm not mad, I am just perplexed at why you'd want to do that and also demand to be taken seriously.

 

[pasifika]

.....and it was proven desolate with the removal and destruction of the Temple. God dwelled with His people through the High Priest in the sanctuary (which is no longer there). The geneology records were destroyed - so none of that ancient system can be revived.

the desolation is end at the second coming of Christ...not a rebuild earthly Jerusalem but the New Jerusalem that is above is the Real Holy City of All Israel....

 

[mkgal1]

So where is Jerusalem of old today? Is it the same place? So as the territory of Judea....it tells you the event of the end time is in Israel

You seem to be skirting the issue. People cannot flee from a place that's non-existent (Judea). Besides - if this passage means what you interpret it to mean - why would *believers* be fleeing to the mountains? Why would Jesus have given those instructions (and why did He tell people almost 2000 years ago, instruction that didn't apply to them....as you're suggesting)? I believe He told the people that actually used the instruction - and our religion exists today because of their faithfulness.

 

[Al Touthentop]

the desolation is end at the second coming of Christ...not a rebuild earthly Jerusalem but the New Jerusalem that is above is the Real Holy City of All Israel....

Where does it say the desolation of Jerusalem comes at the second coming?