Olivet Discourse revisited

[TribulationSigns]

The generation of 1948 has not all passed away. It does not say a specific amount of time. It says that generation will not pass away.

You hae no idea what generation Christ was talking about. It is not a specific literal time period for people living in 70AD or 1948AD. The generation is a spiritual family. Here, Christ said that this generation or family of evil, that spanned over time from Cain to today will not pass away until all things are fulfilled at the SECOND COMING. The unsaved people in 1358BC, 600BC, 70AD, 1948AD and today are only part of the ongoing generation of evil that won't pass away until Christ returns. Nothing to do with the physical nation of Israel or some 40/70 years theories.

Matthew and Luke are talking about two different generations. Matthew is today. Luke was the first century.

Uh? Nope!

 

[RandyPNW]

Unlike many, I don't place Church tradition upon a pedestal, because I have God's word already up there, and it doesn't share rule (Matthew 15:3).

So says every student of the Bible. "I take the scriptures seriously. Listen to me!" But if I'm to take what you say seriously, I cannot even take *your words* too seriously. I have to judge what you claim is true by the Scriptures?

Christ is not weeping over a few thousand people being killed in Jersualem. Thousands of people are killed every day of the week. No, you do err. Christ was weeping at foreseeing the fall of Old Testament congregation of Israel that they are blinded and that the kingdom will be taken from them and given to another, not that some Romans would conquer their temporal city.

1st, you say we should take the Scriptures seriously, as our rule. And then you turn what is said into symbolism that *you* interpret for others. That makes *you* the rule--not the Scriptures. No, the Scriptures indicate Christ wept over a literal Jerusalem over a literal destruction that was to take place in a literal generation.

It is popular to derive spiritual revelation from literal statements so as to insert the spiritual revelation in place of the literal truth. That is purely subjective and turns away from what is actually being said. You may be able to find diverse meanings for words, but to cross-reference passages in order to determine a single meaning for a word is an interpretive fallacy. What may be referring to a generation in a general sense in one passage does not discount a literal meaning of a generation in another passage.

I would argue that there was a literal generation of Hebrews who went through the Wilderness of Sinai. Though this was a literal 40 year genration we may then characterize that generation as an "disobedient" generation," presenting the word "generation" in an additional sense, indicating that that generation failed to obey God. That does not discount the fact the character of that generation was derived from the display of a single, literal generation of 40 years!

Do we define this prophecy by the ramblings of Josephus

Who said I made reference to Josephus? I didn't do that at all? If your interpretation is as bad as your presumption I have real problems with your post! The Church Fathers understood that Jesus indicated Jerusalem would fall to the Romans imminently. That doesn't take a brilliant mind--it was plain to see, both in contemporary history and in the words Jesus used.

The fall of Jerusalem was not some kind of carnal, literal rendering of Scriptures. That was precisely what Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel had prophesied before him. They spoke of the literal fall of Israel to the Babylonians. There is every reason to ignore a "spiritualization" of prophecy to turn it from something literal and historical to some "moral lesson" devised by the human imagination. As you said, let's let Scripture be the rule, and not our own thoughts alone.

 

[RandyPNW]

The generation of 1948 has not all passed away. It does not say a specific amount of time. It says that generation will not pass away.

Matthew and Luke are talking about two different generations. Matthew is today. Luke was the first century.

Sorry, Matthew, Mark, and Luke presented the same Discourse of Jesus. If we try to separate one version from another, nothing makes sense to me. They make far better sense when viewed as a single discourse.

As I told another, "generation" can be used several ways. But in context Jesus was referring to his own literal generation. If you wish to see it about our time, I find no evidence of that.

 

[RandyPNW]

Hi Randy,

I was born in 1947 and still going strong. Israel, in 1948 and still going strong. Add 7 years and we get to 2030 plus and that generation (1947) would still not have ALL passed away. So, some time yet still.

And `Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.` (Luke 21: 24)

The Gentiles are still ruling the world and `trampling Jerusalem.`

Marilyn.

Granted, someone born in '48 could live to a 100 years old. That doesn't appear to be the meaning Jesus had in mind! He was warning his own generation that they were stubborn, perhaps like the generation that failed to enter Canaan many generations before him. He was warning the Jews of his own time that Jerusalem would be surrounded by armies, ie Roman troops, who would destroy both the city and the sanctuary, as Daniel had prophesied many years before.

Eze 12.1 The word of the Lord came to me: 2 “Son of man, you are living among a rebellious people. They have eyes to see but do not see and ears to hear but do not hear, for they are a rebellious people.
3 “Therefore, son of man, pack your belongings for exile and in the daytime, as they watch, set out and go from where you are to another place. Perhaps they will understand, though they are a rebellious people...
21 The word of the Lord came to me: 22 “Son of man, what is this proverb you have in the land of Israel: ‘The days go by and every vision comes to nothing’? 23 Say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am going to put an end to this proverb, and they will no longer quote it in Israel.’ Say to them, ‘The days are near when every vision will be fulfilled. 24 For there will be no more false visions or flattering divinations among the people of Israel. 25 But I the Lord will speak what I will, and it shall be fulfilled without delay. For in your days, you rebellious people, I will fulfill whatever I say, declares the Sovereign Lord.’”

Ezekiel's burden was not to warn about the Apocalypse, the end of the world, or some future generation that would see the consummation of all things. Rather, he was warning about the moral dilemma of his own time, and about the fate of people rebelling right in front of him. They were about to be judged for their crimes against God and against one another.

Jesus is acting in the same spirit and in the same way. He was warning Jerusalem in his own time of what they were doing right in front of him. He was warning them that they were about to be destroyed, and encouraging the faithful to live separately from all of this sin and rebellion so as to be part of the future Kingdom of God.

This was the view, generally, of the Church Fathers. The idea that "generation" here referred to a future generation in which Israel would be reborn as a state is not only foreign to the passage, but is an unheard-of interpretation in most of Church history.

 

[keras]

As I told another, "generation" can be used several ways. But in context Jesus was referring to his own literal generation. If you wish to see it about our time, I find no evidence of that.

The evidence for Matthew 24:34, being for our time, is in the context.
Truly I tell you; the present generation will see it all. [Or the generation present...]

This verse comes after His prophecy of the restoration of Judah, the budding of the fig tree and how it will be those people who will see it all.
In the 1st Century, Judah was conquered and dispersed, They surely did not bud and blossom, or see it all!

It should be clear to all that we are at a pivotal point of human history now. Jesus goes on to warn us of what will happen:
1/ We won't know the day or the hour of the next prophesied event.
2/ It will be a wipe out, similar to the Flood.
3/ Some will be taken [killed] and some left.
4/ Be ready and Spiritually prepared for it.
5/ Be a good servant, doing the Masters work. People will be rewarded and some castigated.
Matthew 24:37-51

 

[Marilyn C]

God is talking about His New Testament congregation, the church, prior to Second Coming.

Well, I did ask.

`how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery...which in other ages was not known to the sons of men...` (Eph. 3: 3 -5)

 

[Marilyn C]

Granted, someone born in '48 could live to a 100 years old. That doesn't appear to be the meaning Jesus had in mind! He was warning his own generation that they were stubborn, perhaps like the generation that failed to enter Canaan many generations before him. He was warning the Jews of his own time that Jerusalem would be surrounded by armies, ie Roman troops, who would destroy both the city and the sanctuary, as Daniel had prophesied many years before.

But the `times of the Gentiles,` ruling the world has NOT finished!

 

[claninja]

But the `times of the Gentiles,` ruling the world has NOT finished!

Jerusalem was so thoroughly trampled by the gentiles that the temple had not one stone standing upon another in 70ad. This occurred during the first century, during Jesus’ generation.

Not sure where you get “gentiles ruling the world” from?

 

[claninja]

You hae no idea what generation Christ was talking about.

What do you mean? It seems pretty straight forward as to which generation he was referring to:

The one that would experience persecution, false prophets, famine, earthquakes, wars, lawlessness, the gospel going to the whole Roman world, The destruction of Jerusalem, the coming of the son of man on the clouds, And the coming of the kingdom with power.

This all happened during Jesus’ generation.

 

[TribulationSigns]

So says every student of the Bible. "I take the scriptures seriously. Listen to me!" But if I'm to take what you say seriously, I cannot even take *your words* too seriously. I have to judge what you claim is true by the Scriptures?

I provided Scripture. Were you serious with these? Doubtfully.

1st, you say we should take the Scriptures seriously, as our rule. And then you turn what is said into symbolism that *you* interpret for others. That makes *you* the rule--not the Scriptures. No, the Scriptures indicate Christ wept over a literal Jerusalem over a literal destruction that was to take place in a literal generation.

No. You need to read the Scripture carefully:

Luk 19:38-44
(38) Saying, Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest.
(39) And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples.
(40) And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.
(41) And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
(42) Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
(43) For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
(44) And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.

When Christ beheld the city, did he weep over the physical stones of the city? Didn't you compare Scripture with Scripture that God has compared the stones with people of the congregation? If Christ told disciples to hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out. The stones are people who are praising Christ. The people of the Old Testament congregation. Verses 43 and 44 however was talking about the FALL of Old Testament congregation. Not the physical city, but judgment or vengeance upon the unfaithful people of the congregation for their rejection that took place shortly after. This is what not leaving in one stone upon another signifies. For example:

Luk 21:5-6
(5) And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said,
(6) As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Like the Jews, you may think Christ was talking about the physical city and temple here. But He was talking about His people of the congregation which temple REPRESENTS. Spoke to the Jews, Christ said:

Joh 2:18-21
(18) Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
(19) Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
(20) Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
(21) But he spake of the temple of his body.

The Jews thought Christ was talking about a physical temple that they need to tear down so He will rebuild it in three days. They have carnal thoughts and do not understand what Christ talked about. The temple of his body is the "CONGREGATION" - - His people, that will destroy (for their rejection of Messiah the Prince). This is why the kingdom was taken from them and given to the Church... in three days!

If you can't see this truth, nothing I can do to help. It is up to the Lord to reveal the truth to you. Hey, I provided the Scripture. It is a serious matter.

I would argue that there was a literal generation of Hebrews who went through the Wilderness of Sinai. Though this was a literal 40 year genration we may then characterize that generation as an "disobedient" generation," presenting the word "generation" in an additional sense, indicating that that generation failed to obey God. That does not discount the fact the character of that generation was derived from the display of a single, literal generation of 40 years!

Sorry, you do not make any sense. You do not even provide a Scripture. But please allow me...
The number forty in scripture often illustrates a time of trial or testing. For example, as the Lord tried/tested Israel in the wilderness.

Deu 8:2
(2) And thou shalt remember all the way which the LORD thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no.

The Lord tried (proved) them forty years in the wilderness. The word proved means to TEST, not "disobedience"! It was God's testing program to see if they would keep His commandments and be faithful. The number forty signified this, whether days, years or months depending on context. We see the same testing as Jesus Christ was tried of Satan forty days in the Wilderness.

Mar 1:13
(13) And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.

Does that mean Jesus was disobedient? No, that word translated tempted is the word tried or tested, not tempted as we might use the word in our day. Christ was never tempted to Sin, he was TRIED by Sin. Or in other words, by sin He was proved or tested.

Likewise, after Christ was killed, He proved Himself forty days.

Act 1:3
(3) To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

Again, Moses was in the mount forty days and the Children of Israel were tried, and they failed the test making themselves an idol. Again, many scriptures show this spiritual significance of 40! So your claim that 40 years generation means disobedience has been proved wrong.

Who said I made reference to Josephus? I didn't do that at all? If your interpretation is as bad as your presumption I have real problems with your post! The Church Fathers understood that Jesus indicated Jerusalem would fall to the Romans imminently. That doesn't take a brilliant mind--it was plain to see, both in contemporary history and in the words Jesus used.

I was writing to a general audience as well whether you made any reference to Josephus or not to save my time! I do not care what "Church Fathers," early or later think. I go by Scripture. They can claim Jersualem physically fall to Romans all they want, but I can prove them wrong with Scripture.

The fall of Jerusalem was not some kind of carnal, literal rendering of Scriptures. That was precisely what Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel had prophesied before him. They spoke of the literal fall of Israel to the Babylonians. There is every reason to ignore a "spiritualization" of prophecy to turn it from something literal and historical to some "moral lesson" devised by the human imagination. As you said, let's let Scripture be the rule, and not our own thoughts alone.

(Patting on your back)... okay...

See the "literal fall" of Old Testament Israel was only an example for the New Testament congregation, the church. As God spoke through Paul, it is spiritual discerned.

 

[keras]

the coming of the son of man on the clouds, And the coming of the kingdom with power.

This all happened during Jesus’ generation.

In your dreams. Or more likely - your nightmare!
We still wait for Jesus to Return in glory, seen by every eye. Revelation 1:7

 

[TribulationSigns]

Well, I did ask.

`how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery...which in other ages was not known to the sons of men...` (Eph. 3: 3 -5)

Glad you asked. I provided God's answer through His Word. Up to you to receive it.

 

[TribulationSigns]

What do you mean? It seems pretty straight forward as to which generation he was referring to:

The Jews also thought so too yet they were wrong.

The one that would experience persecution, false prophets, famine, earthquakes, wars, lawlessness, the gospel going to the whole Roman world, The destruction of Jerusalem, the coming of the son of man on the clouds, And the coming of the kingdom with power.

This all happened during Jesus’ generation.

No, that's another of the many inconsistencies with the prophecy (Matthew 24:21) and the 70 AD theory where Preterism declares the great tribulation of saints took place in 70 AD. Not only that, but that it was such as was not since the beginning of this world to that time, nor ever would be--as "required" by the Matthew 24 prophecy. An astounding declaration that it itself should invalidate the 70 AD theory. This is also why partial Preterists (and whatever other name they give themselves) divide the same verse into two different eras "because" they know it is inconsistent otherwise, and so they attempt to separate what is obviously a narrative of those same days.

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:"

Full Praeterists at least confess it's one era and at least admit this all happened long ago. By contrast, the Partial Praeterist theorists and others even calling themselves Futurists, Amillennialists, Postmillennialists, Premillennialists, and such, do all sorts of exegetical and hermeneutical gymnastics in a vain attempt to get around this clear passage. That "immediately" after the tribulation of those days the sun be darkened, when the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken, they struggle to account for. This prophecy can be one of two things. The fall of National Israel as the "representation" of the Kingdom of God on earth, OR the fall of the New Testament Congregation, the Church, as spiritually Babylon. Obviously neither of which took place in 70 AD.

"truth inspires change -WiseManSay"

The destruction of Jerusalem

Destruction or Desolation of Jersualem? In 70 AD? Ahem...

That's NOT what Christ said! So your retort or "re-translation" is that this is what Christ said, but you know better what He "really" meant? Wouldn't that fall into the category of taking away from the words of the prophecy of this book, thus being subject to its plagues? Because the specific prophecy, without mixture, is that not one stone would be left standing one upon another and the city would be laid even with the ground. By contrast, not one word about 70 AD, the Romans, Titus, or desecrations of the Temple by Roman soldiers. Indeed, it was already desolated by His people many years prior so that it wasn't the Holy Temple anymore. So how could it be the Holy Temple of Christ's prophecy? Truly it is clear that the desecration/desolation of the Temple would be by those who are called "His People." Indeed it said that the saints would be persecuted "for His Sake." Did the Romans march on Jerusalem because Christians spoke for Christ's sake? The whole thing is wrought with inconsistencies and contradictions!!

Ezekiel 12:25

• "For I am the LORD: I will speak, and the word that I shall speak shall come to pass; it shall be no more prolonged: for in your days, O rebellious house, will I say the word, and will perform it, saith the Lord GOD."

The word that the Lord spoke came concerning the rebellious house of Israel and wasn't prolonged until 70 AD. It did come to pass. Not as the 70 AD theorists suppose it should, but "exactly" as God always intended it to come to pass.

Matthew 23:37-38

• "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
• Behold, your house is left unto you desolate."

"This" Jerusalem was not left desolate after 70 AD, but right when they destroyed the Holy Temple, not when Romans destroyed an unholy one. And in three days it was rebuilt, with Christ being the chief cornerstone of this building. What building is this?! CHURCH which we currently are working in... as the stones! Not physical stones of the temple in 70AD else you explain what happened in three days after temple fell in 70AD anyway! LOL. Sorry, Scripture proved your 70 theory wrong! Because the Jews, the people of the Old Testament Congregation, knew not the time of their visitation. And true to the Lord's Words, not one stone was left standing in that desolation, an entirely new structure was built, with stones that sit upon Christ. With some stones made of wood, hay, and stubble, their true nature is only revealed by fire.

Those with spiritual ears, let him hear! Selah!

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

A good paper on this topic is here: https://tms.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/tmsj13f.pdf

If you add the life expectancy of a modern day Israeli which according what I found was 82 years, to the year 1948, you arrive at 2030 AD. So we have at least another 7 years for those who hold to that point of view.

If you really want to study other viewpoints, Steve Gregg's 4 Views of Revelation was a great study book we read for 2 years along with Scripture and a pile of papers like the one I posted at the top. I had no idea what preterism was before our study, and at one point emailed Dr. Gentry and he replied back to help me understand preterism, and he has a website with dozens of papers he has written along with a book that should have now been published, but in the end, all of my study group decided futurism best (though none perfectly) match Scripture. The bottom line is none of us knows 100% for sure who is right or otherwise we wouldn't be debating how to interpret Revelation nearly 2000 years later. I will add that most scholars and books cite AD95 as the year John wrote Revelation which doesn't fit well with a preterist view, but of course many will jump in and point out a hundred scholars who believe John wrote Revelation while Nero was emperor, which means before AD67 since he died that year, but I see more support for Domitian than Nero so AD95 seems to me more accurate, but again none of us were there and so we should respect other views.

 

[RandyPNW]

But the `times of the Gentiles,` ruling the world has NOT finished!

Yes, that's true. Dan 9 does not terminate the times of the Gentiles. Dan 9 refers to the time of the 4th Kingdom of Dan 2 and 7. That Kingdom was to break up into states, which is basically the history of Europe.

And then, when Antichrist takes charge of Europe, Christ will return to end the rule of Gentile paganism. The Kingdom of Christ will rule the world, though I personally believe that nations and individuals will still choose to remain pagan in belief. They simply will not be allowed to destroy Christian nations for a thousand years.

Dan 9 indicates that the people, or army, of the prince to come, ie a Roman general, will savage Jerusalem and the sanctuary. That was to happen in the time when the Anointed One, or Messiah, would be "cut off."

As we know, Rome presided over Jesus' death, cutting him off. And a Roman army destroyed Jerusalem and the temple 40 years later, within the time of Jesus' generation. Dan 9 was completely fulfilled in Jesus' time!

But this has little to do with the end of the times of the Gentiles. That time comes at the end of the time of the 4th Kingdom, after it has broken up into states, and Antichrist has assembled an empire with 10 of them, 7 kings and 10 states. Just my opinion, sister...

 

[RandyPNW]

I provided Scripture. Were you serious with these? Doubtfully.

If we're to have a reasonable discussion, you're going to have to avoid judgmentalism. I'm serious about Scriptures. Always have been.

No. You need to read the Scripture carefully:

Luk 19:38-44
(38) Saying, Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest.
(39) And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples.
(40) And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.
(41) And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
(42) Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
(43) For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
(44) And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.

When Christ beheld the city, did he weep over the physical stones of the city? Didn't you compare Scripture with Scripture that God has compared the stones with people of the congregation? If Christ told disciples to hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out. The stones are people who are praising Christ. The people of the Old Testament congregation. Verses 43 and 44 however was talking about the FALL of Old Testament congregation. Not the physical city, but judgment or vengeance upon the unfaithful people of the congregation for their rejection that took place shortly after. This is what not leaving in one stone upon another signifies. For example:

The poetic use of "stones" for people does not negate their application to real people! The stones of the temple Jesus said would come down were real stones. Jesus' disciples were pointing out to Jesus real stones and a real temple--not a symbolic thing. Interpreting things symbolically, in this case, is not a "spiritual revelation"--it is an effort to bypass the literal meaning.

Joh 2:18-21
(18) Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
(19) Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
(20) Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
(21) But he spake of the temple of his body.

The Jews thought Christ was talking about a physical temple that they need to tear down so He will rebuild it in three days. They have carnal thoughts and do not understand what Christ talked about. The temple of his body is the "CONGREGATION" - - His people, that will destroy (for their rejection of Messiah the Prince). This is why the kingdom was taken from them and given to the Church... in three days!

Yes, Jesus identified his own body as a temple--not the physical temple of stone. In doing so he was not identifying the temple itself as his body, but as a real temple that had been used to prepare for his physical coming. He would do something greater than the temple could do. Whereas the temple brought temporary mitigation for sin, he would bring final mitigation for sin and Eternal Life!

None of this means that Jesus didn't refer to the real temple and say it would be torn down. Having it torn down was indicative of his message that he had to fulfill and replace that temple because its activities would fail to remove Israel's transgression. The priests of the temple would plot to have Jesus rejected and killed.

If you can't see this truth, nothing I can do to help. It is up to the Lord to reveal the truth to you. Hey, I provided the Scripture. It is a serious matter.

It's equally serious for you to follow the love of Christ. Making yourself a spokesman for "the truth" is an ego trip and not godly. It is very unscriptural since the Scripture calls for us to let every man serve His own Lord and to let others come to understanding over time. It is not for you to judge one who may not believe the way you do. The Lord will judge.

Who does Scripture say is the center of our understanding, but Christ himself?

Col 2.18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind.
19 They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

Phil 3.15 All of us, then, who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you.

You are not claiming angelic revelations, but you are claiming your revelations to be equal to divine revelation. You should be humble and acknowledge that you are weak, as we all are. We're capable of error.

Sorry, you do not make any sense. You do not even provide a Scripture. But please allow me...
The number forty in scripture often illustrates a time of trial or testing. For example, as the Lord tried/tested Israel in the wilderness.

If you can't understand my argument, why go on arguing? All you have to do is reread and tell me what you don't understand. But you instead wish to give your own message. In other words, you wish to argue--not come to an understanding where we disagree. You wish to paint a broad brush of condemnation and judgment against anybody who disagrees with you, claiming you're "spiritual" and all others hostile towards the Scriptures and revelation. At least it seems so? Please clarify.

Deu 8:2
(2) And thou shalt remember all the way which the LORD thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no.

The Lord tried (proved) them forty years in the wilderness. The word proved means to TEST, not "disobedience"! It was God's testing program to see if they would keep His commandments and be faithful. The number forty signified this, whether days, years or months depending on context. We see the same testing as Jesus Christ was tried of Satan forty days in the Wilderness.

Mar 1:13
(13) And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.

Does that mean Jesus was disobedient? No, that word translated tempted is the word tried or tested, not tempted as we might use the word in our day. Christ was never tempted to Sin, he was TRIED by Sin. Or in other words, by sin He was proved or tested.

Likewise, after Christ was killed, He proved Himself forty days.

Act 1:3
(3) To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

Again, Moses was in the mount forty days and the Children of Israel were tried, and they failed the test making themselves an idol. Again, many scriptures show this spiritual significance of 40! So your claim that 40 years generation means disobedience has been proved wrong.

My point was simply that 40 years referred to 40 years. But you try to associate some meaning with 40 years in order to not take it literally, I'm supposing?

The passages you quote confirm what I'm saying. You just say you don't understand me.

I was writing to a general audience as well whether you made any reference to Josephus or not to save my time! I do not care what "Church Fathers," early or later think. I go by Scripture. They can claim Jersualem physically fall to Romans all they want, but I can prove them wrong with Scripture.

That's pretty weak. You were talking to *me.* At best, you would be confusing others about what I believe. If you wish to talk to everybody at once, without addressing me and my arguments, please make that clear from the outset. Thanks.

 

[claninja]

In your dreams. Or more likely - your nightmare!
We still wait for Jesus to Return in glory, seen by every eye. Revelation 1:7

I’m talking about Daniel 7:13-14 (the coming of the son of man on the clouds, which Christ alludes to in the olivet discours), which was fulfilled in the first century.

 

[claninja]

The Jews also thought so too yet they were wrong.

Which Jews?

No, that's another of the many inconsistencies with the prophecy (Matthew 24:21) and the 70 AD theory where Preterism declares the great tribulation of saints took place in 70 AD.

This doesn’t address anything I posted.

So is it your position that the apostles generation did NOT experience persecution, lawlessness, false prophets, wars, earthquakes, the gospel going to the Roman world, Daniel 7:13, the destruction of the temple and city?

So how could it be the Holy Temple of Christ's prophecy?

Is it your position that Jesus is talking about the spiritual church, when the disciples were remarking about the literal temple buildings and Jesus says “as for what you see here”?


Luke 21:5-7
5As some of the disciples were remarking how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and consecrated gifts, Jesus said, 6“As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

7“Teacher,” they asked, “when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?”

 

[TribulationSigns]

If we're to have a reasonable discussion, you're going to have to avoid judgmentalism. I'm serious about Scriptures. Always have been.

Those who do not receive the love of the truth usually play the victim cards. You are just saying this because you are offended by the truthful testimony. Simple as that.

The poetic use of "stones" for people does not negate their application to real people! The stones of the temple Jesus said would come down were real stones. Jesus' disciples were pointing out to Jesus real stones and a real temple--not a symbolic thing. Interpreting things symbolically, in this case, is not a "spiritual revelation"--it is an effort to bypass the literal meaning.

Guess you are not a fan of spiritual discernment. What stones do you think Peter talked about?
1Pe 2:4-6
(4) To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
(5) Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
(6) Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

Stones are people in God's eyes. Period. But those with carnal minds, like the Jews of Old, think God is talking about physical stones elsewhere.

Yes, Jesus identified his own body as a temple--not the physical temple of stone.

Finally, you are getting it. Now the next question is what does the body of the temple represents? Was it not His people, the people of the congregation, at that time? Now that temple was destroyed by the Jews, what temple was it that fell and in three days Christ rebuilt it> Do you really understand what Christ was talking about? No it's not physical stones of the building!!

In doing so he was not identifying the temple itself as his body, but as a real temple that had been used to prepare for his physical coming.

Sigh. You do not make any sense.

By the context "you" think and believe that Christ wasn't speaking of a spiritual Temple. Obviously, there is a difference of opinion on that point because many both can and do "see" that Christ spoke of the fall of the congregation, and not of a pile of bricks in the middle east.

His Body, the Temple that fell at the cross, signaled the desolation of Old Testament Israel and the rebuilding signaled the bringing again of the captivity. The fall of the Temple in Matthew 24 and Luke (Olivet Discourse) are of the fall near the end of the world. Plainly illustrated to those who can "see" that the restoration of Israel is not about a worldly/carnal construction efforts, but about a regeneration and recreation in Christ Jesus. Israel is being restored by the spreading of the gospel reconciliation to the world.

And the very fact that we have people arguing what they see the Temple represents here proves that what you "see" is not what everyone sees. And that is why Christ said, when "You" see the abomination stand in the Holy place. Because being omniscient He knew that there would be those reading these passages who would not see, and who would not flee, and who would not know the "signs" of His coming from a pile of bricks in the middle east.

He would do something greater than the temple could do. Whereas the temple brought temporary mitigation for sin, he would bring final mitigation for sin and Eternal Life!

Huh? Scripture, please!

None of this means that Jesus didn't refer to the real temple and say it would be torn down. Having it torn down was indicative of his message that he had to fulfill and replace that temple because its activities would fail to remove Israel's transgression. The priests of the temple would plot to have Jesus rejected and killed.

And how did it rebuild in THREE DAYS! Explain yourself. I am waiting.

It's equally serious for you to follow the love of Christ. Making yourself a spokesman for "the truth" is an ego trip and not godly. It is very unscriptural since the Scripture calls for us to let every man serve His own Lord and to let others come to understanding over time. It is not for you to judge one who may not believe the way you do. The Lord will judge.

Playing victim cards? I preach with SCripture and you accused me of having an ego? The question is did you really receive the Word of God preached to you? Or are you defending your private interpretation? The Lord judges.

Who does Scripture say is the center of our understanding, but Christ himself?

Your point is? Do you have the mind of Christ? Listen...

1Co 2:13-16
(13) Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
(14) But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
(15) But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
(16) For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Col 2.18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind.
19 They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

Phil 3.15 All of us, then, who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you.

Did you look yourself in the mirror and repeat these Scripture?

You are not claiming angelic revelations, but you are claiming your revelations to be equal to divine revelation.

Angelic revelations? Where does that idea come from?! Don't you know what "spiritual discernment" even means, don't you? Read the verses I quote above!

You should be humble and acknowledge that you are weak, as we all are. We're capable of error.

And...? That gave you an excuse for not receiving the Scripture truth? Like you said, the Lord judges.

If you can't understand my argument, why go on arguing?

You don't get it. I wrote posts here for all audiences, not just you. So that people can see both sides of arguments and decide for themselves.

All you have to do is reread and tell me what you don't understand. But you instead wish to give your own message.

Strawmen.

In other words, you wish to argue--not come to an understanding where we disagree.

Hardly, I know your doctrine very well. I used to be a teacher of your doctrine.

You wish to paint a broad brush of condemnation and judgment against anybody who disagrees with you, claiming you're "spiritual" and all others hostile towards the Scriptures and revelation. At least it seems so? Please clarify.

You still do not get it. The understanding is spiritual discernment. Not about one being "spiritual". People who are offended by spiritual discernment as they treated the word "allegory", "spiritual", etc. like a plague.

My point was simply that 40 years referred to 40 years. But you try to associate some meaning with 40 years in order to not take it literally, I'm supposing?

No. the point is that 40 years does not signify "disobedience" as you alleged. It signifies trail and testing. See the different now, do you? Moses and his people did wander in the desert for 40 literal years but God sees it as a testing.

The passages you quote confirm what I'm saying. You just say you don't understand me.

LOL.

That's pretty weak. You were talking to *me.* At best, you would be confusing others about what I believe. If you wish to talk to everybody at once, without addressing me and my arguments, please make that clear from the outset. Thanks.

No, I will expose your doctrine as false without to anyone without attacking you, as long as I provide Scripture to disprove your doctrine, theories, supposition, opinions, etc.

Nothing personal.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Which Jews?

What do you think?

This doesn’t address anything I posted.

And yet you stated:

So is it your position that the apostles generation did NOT experience persecution, lawlessness, false prophets, wars, earthquakes, the gospel going to the Roman world, Daniel 7:13, the destruction of the temple and city?

So yeah I did address what you posted.

The answer is YES. The Olivet discourse was not about 70AD. It is for the New Testament congregation prior to Second Coming.

Is it your position that Jesus is talking about the spiritual church

New Testament congregation - the one that Christ rebuilt in three days after his death (temple destroyed) where Christ is not a chief cornerstone.

, when the disciples were remarking about the literal temple buildings and Jesus says “as for what you see here”?


Luke 21:5-7
5As some of the disciples were remarking how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and consecrated gifts, Jesus said, 6“As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

7“Teacher,” they asked, “when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?”

Jesus Christ knew that his disciples did not understand what temple and stones Christ talked about after the resurrection. Christ said that the temple and stones signify the fall of old testament congregation of Israel before providing the rest of the discourse about HIs New Testament congregations near the second coming. Not 70AD.