The fate of Satan, the beast and his demons mirror each other

[Timtofly]

The great tribulation occurred in AD70.

So those who died in 70AD were resurrected in 30AD? How did that work? I bet they avoided Jerusalem the next time around?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Matthew 24:4-13 covered a time era from 33 ad to 135 ad when Hadrian has Jeruslaem plowed under. That era was a period of 100 years. So famines, pestilence, earthquakes, in divers locations took place over that era.

In Matthew 24:14, the gospel of the kingdom of God was spread into the nations, a long term period of 2000 years, while the Jews were in diaspora.

Then the end comes - the time of the end, end times, latter days, later years in Matthew 24:15-31. The parable of the fig tree generation.

Why would Jesus's reference to "the end" in Matthew 24:6 and Matthew 24:13 refer to something different than His reference to "the end" in Matthew 24:14? That does not make any sense and reveals how doctrinal bias influences your interpretation of scripture.

Since He was asked a question about "the end of the age" it's quite reasonable to assume that every time He referenced "the end" He was referring to "the end of the age".

Matthew 24 was not a written letter, like the epistles, it is Jesus direct speaking to the disciples of the future of the Jews and Israel - in linear fashion all the way to His return. And verified by history.

Revelation, on the other hand, that was written down prophecy as John was to told to record what he was told and saw, and was instructed to deliver to the church's as Jesus told John to do so. It's contents are not totally linear.

Douggg, can you tell me or show me when you think Jesus said what He did in Luke 21:20-24 in relation to what He said in Matthew 24:15-22 (and Mark 13:14-20)?

Which do you think He said first, what is recorded in Luke 21:20-24 or what is recorded in Matthew 24:15-22 (Mark 13:14-20)?

Can you tell me or show me what you think He said between the end of whichever of those you think He said first and the beginning of whichever of those you think He said later? That would be helpful to give more clarity to how you understand the Olivet Discourse, overall.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Now if you are talking about a repeat in the end times, yes, the Jews were told to flee into the mountains in 70 ad era. Same instructions for the end times.

How would fleeing into the mountains in today's day and age do them any good considering modern transportation, technology and warfare?

Why would Jesus say "woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!" (Matthew 24:19) in regards to people fleeing for their lives today? Pregnant women and nursing mothers could simply get someone to drive them out of there today. That warning is in regards to how difficult it would be for pregnant women and nursing mothers to get out of there ON FOOT. So, that has to be referring to what occurred in 70 AD and not to the future.

Similarly, Jesus warned "pray ye that your flight be not in the winter" (Matt 24:20). Why would that be a concern today or in the future when people in Judea and Jerusalem have snow plows and cars with snow tires? That statement by Jesus was clearly a reference to how difficult it would be to travel by foot in the freezing cold and in the snow. So, again, it's a clear reference to that time period long ago and not to the future.

 

[Douggg]

Why would Jesus's reference to "the end" in Matthew 24:6 and Matthew 24:13 refer to something different than His reference to "the end" in Matthew 24:14? That does not make any sense and reveals how doctrinal bias influences your interpretation of scripture.

Because there were them in the disciples day who we departing the faith, which John wrote about also in 1John 2:18. It is referring to remaining faithful to Jesus, and endure the hardships, to the end of their lives.

12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Differently, in verse 14, it is talking about the end of this age, because it is after the gospel of the Kingdom has been preached to the nations.

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

Douggg, can you tell me or show me when you think Jesus said what He did in Luke 21:20-24 in relation to what He said in Matthew 24:15-22 (and Mark 13:14-20)?

The Olivet discourse, given by Jesus from the mount of olives to the disciples is in Matthew and Mark.

In Luke 21, Jesus is in the temple complex, and gives a parallel, but technically is not the Olivet discourse.

In Matthew 24:14, the gospel of the kingdom will be preached to the nations (see chart above under the long term 2000 years column).

In Mark 13:10-13, the gospel again proclaimed to the nations verse 10, long term (see chart above under the long term 2000 years column). Same message in verses 11-13, as in Matthew 24:13, remain faithful to Jesus to the end of their lives.

(Olivet discourse parallel) In Luke 21:24, the Jews will be taken captive into the nations, (see chart above under the long term 2000 years column) long term for their long term status, as the gospel of the Kingdom of God is preached to the nations over that same long term period in Matthew 24:14, Mark 13:10.

_______________________________________________________________________


Matthew 24:15, after the long term preaching of the gospel, is the end times abomination of desolation.
Which triggers the great tribulation and Jesus's return in verse 30.

Mark 13:14, after the long term proclaiming the gospel in the nations, is the end time abomination of desolation. Which triggers the great tribulation, verse 19, and Jesus's return in verse 26.

Luke 21 is a parallel, which being so, does not have everything that is in Matthew 24, Mark 15, and specifically does not have the abomination of desolation in it. The great tribulation time is implied in Luke 21:34-36.

Luke 21:25-26, the same upheaval of the heavenly powers as in Matthew 24:29, Mark 13:24-25. And Jesus coming in power and great glory in Luke 21:27.
_____________________________________________________________

The near term future of the Jews, Israel, that Jesus told the disciples of, and the long term future of the Jews, Israel, is now documented by history.

The end times status of the Jews, Israel, a nation again back in the land, we are eye witnesses to. We are the parable of the fig tree generation. Matthew 24:15-31 is close at hand. As is the rapture/resurrection.

 

[Douggg]

How would fleeing into the mountains in today's day and age do them any good considering modern transportation, technology and warfare?

Because God will protect them by supernatural means In Revelation 12:16, to the Jews who will have fled into the wilderness, it metaphorically refers to those supernatural means, as the earth opening its mouth to swallow the flood.

13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.

14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.

16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.

,

 

[Douggg]

Why would Jesus say "woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!" (Matthew 24:19) in regards to people fleeing for their lives today? Pregnant women and nursing mothers could simply get someone to drive them out of there today. That warning is in regards to how difficult it would be for pregnant women and nursing mothers to get out of there ON FOOT. So, that has to be referring to what occurred in 70 AD and not to the future.

Similarly, Jesus warned "pray ye that your flight be not in the winter" (Matt 24:20). Why would that be a concern today or in the future when people in Judea and Jerusalem have snow plows and cars with snow tires? That statement by Jesus was clearly a reference to how difficult it would be to travel by foot in the freezing cold and in the snow. So, again, it's a clear reference to that time period long ago and not to the future.

Winter and traveling with children just makes it more difficult to flee.

What you did not note is that they should pray not to half to flee on the Sabbath. Which indicates the instruction to flee is a message to the Jews, who will end up going through the great tribulation.

Matthew 24:15-31 is Jesus's message aimed at them, unbelievers (corporately speaking), when the great tribulation hits. The two witnesses will be testifying to them Matthew 24:15-31, during the first half of the 7 years.

Differently, Matthew 24:32-51 is Jesus's message aimed at believers, Jews and gentiles, on how to recognize the times, and how to avoid having to go through the great tribulation.

 

[DavidPT]

Wrong. You're not letting scripture interpret scripture for you.

Revelation 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

There's no reason to think that the holy city would be earthly Jerusalem in one verse and the heavenly new Jerusalem in another within the same book.

Am I not being very clear in my postings? How can you read what I said then conclude I'm talking about earthly Jerusalem? What I said was, the holy city is meaning Jerusalem, right? Then I said, you don't take it to mean the literal city in the ME, right? How does that not add up to that I'm not even talking about earthly Jerusalem here? The holy city can only be meaning earthly Jerusalem and never a city in another sense instead? My point involved the latter, that in Revelation 11:1-2, though the holy city is meaning Jerusalem, it is not meaning earthly Jerusalem.

There are times when you should to be reading others posts more carefully before responding to what they posted.

Because they have different contexts. One relates to things happening in and around earthly Jerusalem and one relates to things relating to the global church.

What do you think John is referring to in Revelation 11:1 when he refers to the temple of God? A physical building? I guess you must believe that since you think he's talking about earthly Jerusalem there. But, the temple of God is not a physical building but is the corporate body of Christ. It is a heavenly temple, as Revelation 11:19 indicates.

It's not even worth for me to address the rest of your post since it's all based on your belief that Luke 21:20-24 is talking about the same thing as Revelation 11:1-2.

This applies here as well---There are times when you should to be reading others posts more carefully before responding to what they posted.

The following is as clear as I can make it. And if it still isn't clear enough, the problem is not me it is you in that case. I do not think Revelation 11:1-2 involves a literal brick and mortar temple in literal Jerusalem, nor do I think the holy city in verse 2 is meaning earthly Jerusalem in the ME, yet, I do think Jerusalem is meant by the holy city. Understanding Jerusalem in a literal sense is not the only way to understand Jerusalem. And I don't even have to be an Amil in order to already know that. You give the impression, that since I'm Premil, anything involving a temple and Jerusalem in the NT, I always take those things in the literal sense since I'm a Premil.

Actually then, if you took some extra time to read some of my posts more carefully, especially the ones involving this current discussion between us, you might find that I'm making some sense after all. That doesn't mean that you then are obligated to agree with me. It just means that you have read my posts in question carefully enough to at least acknowledge there is some sense to it after all. Right now you are just treating everything I posted in regards to this subject as adding up to nothing but nonsense even though we are somewhat on the same page regarding Revelation 11:1-2. Yet, you don't even acknowledge we are somewhat on the same page regarding Revelation 11:1-2.

Luke 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

This verse says Jerusalem, and it is meaning Jerusalem in another sense at this point. It is no longer involving literal Jerusalem in the Middle East. That Jerusalem was destroyed per verse 20. This Jerusalem involves the same Jerusalem Revelation 11:1-2 is involving, where it calls it the holy city. The holy city always means Jerusalem. But that doesn't mean that it means the literal city in the ME every time.

Revelation 11:1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

My position is---the holy city here is meaning the same Jerusalem meant in Luke 21:24. It is not meaning the Jerusalem meant in Luke 21:20.
-------------
Edited in order to add one final thought.
----------------
What's interesting, and maybe you haven't even noticed, in Matthew 24:15-26 and Mark 13:14-23, the text doesn't even mention Jerusalem. According to Luke 21 though, things involving Jerusalem happen twice. The first time it involves Jerusalem being destroyed. The 2nd time it involves Jerusalem after having been destroyed, meaning Luke 21:24. My opinion then is, Luke 21:20 involves Jerusalem concerning the first time, and Matthew 24:15-26 and Mark 13:14-23 involve Jerusalem concerning the 2nd time, where as to the latter, one should be interpreting some of those things in light of 2 Thessalanians 2, Revelation 11 and Revelation 13, to name a few, and not in light of Luke 21:20 instead, but in light of Luke 21:24 and these other chapters I mentioned.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Winter and traveling with children just makes it more difficult to flee.

You're trying to sweep this under the rug, but that doesn't fool me. He said WOE to pregnant women and nursing mothers and to pray that they wouldn't have to flee during the winter. That gives a sense of urgency. In today's day and age these things would not present an urgent problem. Why are you not willing to acknowledge that? Jesus was clearly referring to something there that He knew would occur in the not too distant future.

What you did not note is that they should pray not to half to flee on the Sabbath. Which indicates the instruction to flee is a message to the Jews, who will end up going through the great tribulation.

It was a message to Christian Jews, yes. I never said He wasn't talking about Jews, so why are you acting as if I did? But Christian Jews in particular would be the ones to heed His warnings.

Matthew 24:15-31 is Jesus's message aimed at them, unbelievers (corporately speaking), when the great tribulation hits.

What?!!! Jesus's message was not for unbelievers. You have to be kidding me. Somehow, you don't understand that Matthew 24:15-22 has to do with God's wrath coming against unbelieving Jews in Jerusalem. So, His message to flee was for believers, not unbelievers.

The two witnesses will be testifying to them Matthew 24:15-31, during the first half of the 7 years.

No, they will not since Matthew 24:15-22 was fulfilled long ago. Your doctrine is so incoherent that I can barely take it seriously.

Differently, Matthew 24:32-51 is Jesus's message aimed at believers, Jews and gentiles, on how to recognize the times, and how to avoid having to go through the great tribulation.

All of Matthew 24 is aimed at believers, but Matthew 24:15-22 was aimed at Jewish believers in particular because it had to do with something that was going to happen in their time because it had to do with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple buildings standing at that time.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Am I not being very clear in my postings?

That's very possible. I find that you are often not clear. I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just being honest here.

How can you read what I said then conclude I'm talking about earthly Jerusalem? What I said was, the holy city is meaning Jerusalem, right?

Usually, if someone just says Jerusalem without specifying which one, they are talking about earthly Jerusalem. Can you not acknowledge that?

Then I said, you don't take it to mean the literal city in the ME, right?

Are you talking about Luke 21:24 or Revelation 11:2 here? See how you're not clear? You're not being specific enough here as to what you're talking about. Whether you admit it or not, you are often hard to follow.

How does that not add up to that I'm not even talking about earthly Jerusalem here? The holy city can only be meaning earthly Jerusalem and never a city in another sense instead? My point involved the latter, that in Revelation 11:1-2, though the holy city is meaning Jerusalem, it is not meaning earthly Jerusalem.

You are hilarious. Who refers to the new Jerusalem as just "Jerusalem"? No one except you, apparently. I'm sure others here would agree with me on this one that a reference to Jerusalem without specifying which one implies that you're talking about earthly Jerusalem. So, this is on you for not being clear.

There are times when you should to be reading others posts more carefully before responding to what they posted.

I did read your post carefully. I believe this is a case of you not communicating clearly rather than me not reading your post carefully.

This applies here as well---There are times when you should to be reading others posts more carefully before responding to what they posted.

Are you just saying this because I say this same thing to you and others sometimes? So, you're just trying to get back at me here for doing that? That's how this comes across.

The following is as clear as I can make it. And if it still isn't clear enough, the problem is not me it is you in that case. I do not think Revelation 11:1-2 involves a literal brick and mortar temple in literal Jerusalem, nor do I think the holy city in verse 2 is meaning earthly Jerusalem in the ME, yet, I do think Jerusalem is meant by the holy city.

You were being clear until you said "yet, I do think Jerusalem is meant by the holy city". What does that mean?

Understanding Jerusalem in a literal sense is not the only way to understand Jerusalem. And I don't even have to be an Amil in order to already know that. You give the impression, that since I'm Premil, anything involving a temple and Jerusalem in the NT, I always take those things in the literal sense since I'm a Premil.

That's true for most Premils. It's also true that if someone is referencing the new Jerusalem they call it the new Jerusalem or the heavenly Jerusalem and not just Jerusalem. So, again, this is all on your for not being clear about which Jerusalem you were talking about.

Actually then, if you took some extra time to read some of my posts more carefully, especially the ones involving this current discussion between us, you might find that I'm making some sense after all.

Stop this nonsense. I do read your posts carefully. You have admitted in the past that you are better at talking about these things then typing them out. You have admitted to struggling to be clear about what you want to say on these forums at times. But, now you're going to act like you always communicate your thoughts clearly on here?

That doesn't mean that you then are obligated to agree with me. It just means that you have read my posts in question carefully enough to at least acknowledge there is some sense to it after all. Right now you are just treating everything I posted in regards to this subject as adding up to nothing but nonsense even though we are somewhat on the same page regarding Revelation 11:1-2. Yet, you don't even acknowledge we are somewhat on the same page regarding Revelation 11:1-2.

I would have acknowledged that if only you would have made it clear that you believe it's talking about the new Jerusalem there rather than the earthly Jerusalem.

Luke 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

This verse says Jerusalem, and it is meaning Jerusalem in another sense at this point. It is no longer involving literal Jerusalem in the Middle East.

How are you coming to this conclusion? You're completely taking the verse out of context for no reason. You agree that Luke 21:20-23 has to do with the earthly Jerusalem, right? Then it makes no sense to think that isn't the Jerusalem Jesus was talking about in Luke 21:24 as well.

That Jerusalem was destroyed per verse 20. This Jerusalem involves the same Jerusalem Revelation 11:1-2 is involving, where it calls it the holy city. The holy city always means Jerusalem. But that doesn't mean that it means the literal city in the ME every time.

You're not getting it. Jesus didn't suddenly go from talking about earthly Jerusalem in one verse to the new heavenly Jerusalem in the next. No, Jesus was saying that the land that the city Jerusalem was on at that time would be trampled by the Gentiles during "the times of the Gentiles".

Revelation 11:1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

My position is---the holy city here is meaning the same Jerusalem meant in Luke 21:24. It is not meaning the Jerusalem meant in Luke 21:20.

Yeah, I get now that you believe that, but it does not make any sense. Luke 21:24 is talking about something that would start happening in 70 AD. Revelation 11:1-2 is about the church of Christ consisting of Jew and Gentile believers. The church didn't start in 70 AD. So, the context of the 2 passages is simply not the same no matter how you look at them.

Edited in order to add one final thought.
----------------
What's interesting, and maybe you haven't even noticed, in Matthew 24:15-26 and Mark 13:14-23, the text doesn't even mention Jerusalem.

Yes, I have noticed that, but I also know that doesn't mean anything. It's still obvious that He was talking about something that would happen in earthly Jerusalem because what He was talking about had to do with answering the question about when the temple buildings would be destroyed. He did reference Judea specifically as well, which showed that He was talking about things happening in and around earthly Jerusalem.

According to Luke 21 though, things involving Jerusalem happen twice. The first time it involves Jerusalem being destroyed. The 2nd time it involves Jerusalem after having been destroyed, meaning Luke 21:24.

So? That's why we have 4 gospels. We can see the big picture by looking at all 4 of them since not all 4 have all the same details.

My opinion then is, Luke 21:20 involves Jerusalem concerning the first time, and Matthew 24:15-26 and Mark 13:14-23 involve Jerusalem concerning the 2nd time, where as to the latter, one should be interpreting some of those things in light of 2 Thessalanians 2, Revelation 11 and Revelation 13, to name a few, and not in light of Luke 21:20 instead, but in light of Luke 21:24 and these other chapters I mentioned.

I just couldn't disagree more with you on this. You're making it as if Jesus suddenly completely changed the subject from the first sentence in Luke 21:24 to the second sentence in that verse and I can't buy that.

You don't see Matthew 24:15-22 and Luke 21:20-24 as being parallel passages. So, with that in mind, when do you think Jesus said what He did in Matthew 24:15-22 in relation to what He said in Luke 21:20-24? Which did He say first and what did He say in between those 2 passages? Can you please show me that so we can examine if your sequence of the things He said makes sense?

 

[Douggg]

It was a message to Christian Jews, yes. I never said He wasn't talking about Jews, so why are you acting as if I did? But Christian Jews in particular would be the ones to heed His warnings.

No, not traveling on Sabbath is part of Judaism's religion to try and adhere to the Torah. They limit their travel on the sabbath.

What?!!! Jesus's message was not for unbelievers. You have to be kidding me. Somehow, you don't understand that Matthew 24:15-22 has to do with God's wrath coming against unbelieving Jews in Jerusalem. So, His message to flee was for believers, not unbelievers.

The two witnesses in Revelation 11 are not testifying to believers but unbelieving Jews in Jerusalem. So that they will become believers when their perceived King of Israel messiah betrays them and claims to have achieved God-hood.

No, they will not since Matthew 24:15-22 was fulfilled long ago. Your doctrine is so incoherent that I can barely take it seriously.

The gospel of the Kingdom of God preached to the nations, 2000 years long term in verse 14. Then the end of the age comes.

Matthew 24:15-22 is part of the time of the end of this age, Matthew 24:15-31, when Jesus returns in great power and glory. Has not happen yet.

All of Matthew 24 is aimed at believers, but Matthew 24:15-22 was aimed at Jewish believers in particular because it had to do with something that was going to happen in their time because it had to do with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple buildings standing at that time.

The destruction of Jerusalem and the temple is in Luke 21:20-24. But the abomination of desolation is not in Luke 21, because it is end times, as it is in Daniel 12. Matthew 24:15-31 is end times.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The Olivet discourse, given by Jesus from the mount of olives to the disciples is in Matthew and Mark.

In Luke 21, Jesus is in the temple complex, and gives a parallel, but technically is not the Olivet discourse.

Wait a minute. You are trying to tell me that you think Luke 21 was a completely separate discourse from Matthew 24 and Mark 13? You have to be kidding me. I'm not even going to read the rest of your post right now because this needs to be addressed first. My question had to do with when He said what during the Olivet Discourse. But, now you're trying to tell me that you think Luke 21 is not a record of the Olivet Discourse but of some other discourse instead, which just blows my mind.

You're trying to say that Jesus was inside the temple when He said what He did in Luke 21 but on the mount of Olives when He said what He did in Matthew 24 and Mark 13. But, that is not the case. You are assuming that because of where He was when what is described in the previous verses was occurring. But, Luke simply did not include the detail that they were on the mount of Olives when He gave the discourse that Luke recorded in Luke 21.

I can't believe I even need to do this, but let me just show the beginning of Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 and let's see if there's evidence to show that they are 2 different discourses entirely (with Matt 24 and Mark 13 recording one and Luke 21 the other) or just 3 records of the same one discourse.

Actually, let's just stick with Matthew 24 and Luke 21 for the sake of time and space since Mark 13 is very similar to Matthew 24 and we agree that Matthew 24 and Mark 13 are both accounts of the Olivet Discourse.

Matthew 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. 2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. 3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? 4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. 5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. 6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. 8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.

Luke 21:5 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. 7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass? 8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them. 9 But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by. 10 Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: 11 And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven.

The similarities between these passages are very obvious. But I'll list them anyway just to illustrate how ridiculous it is to think that these are not parallel passages and records of the same discourse.

These are the things that can be found in both passages:

1. The disciples marveled at the temple buildings
2. Jesus responded to the disciples by telling them that the temple buildings they were marveling at would be destroyed with no stone left upon another.
3. The disciples asked when the temple buildings would be destroyed (Matthew records them as asking about His coming and the end of the age as well).
4. Jesus warned about being deceived by false Christs
5. Jesus spoke about future wars but that they would not indicate that the end has come yet.
6. Jesus said nation would rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom.
7. Jesus said that there would be famines, pestilences and earthquakes in divers places.

So, you believe that Jesus said all these same things to the disciples on 2 separate occasions when the disciples were marveling at the temple buildings. Do you think the disciples were dumb? Do you think they forgot everything that Jesus told them about these things the first time so He had to tell them all of it again? That is completely ludicrous. Surely, they would not have forgotten these things and would not need to be told these things twice. Especially the part about their precious temple buildings being completely destroyed. I'm certain they would not have forgotten about that.

It is absolutely mind boggling that you would suggest that Luke 21 is not a record of the Olivet Discourse. Yes, it most certainly is.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

No, not traveling on Sabbath is part of Judaism's religion to try and adhere to the Torah. They limit their travel on the sabbath.

Nice try. Jesus knew that many Jews who followed Him would continue to observe the Sabbath as they had always done. So, your argument here is invalid.

The two witnesses in Revelation 11 are not testifying to believers but unbelieving Jews in Jerusalem. So that they will become believers when their perceived King of Israel messiah betrays them and claims to have achieved God-hood.

The two witnesses have nothing to do with what Jesus talked about in Matthew 24:15-22.

 

[DavidPT]

Are you talking about Luke 21:24 or Revelation 11:2 here? See how you're not clear? You're not being specific enough here as to what you're talking about. Whether you admit it or not, you are often hard to follow.

If I am hard to follow it's simply because I am better at expressing my thoughts in person rather than in typing. If we were having these discussions face to face in person, you would easily be following me. That doesn't mean you would be agreeing with me then. I can easily without much effort express what I am meaning in person. That task is not as easy for me when trying to express what I'm meaning in writing.

So let's look at what I said earlier, then see if I was being clear enough at the time or not.

Literal Jerusalem just got destroyed in Luke 21:20 and that Revelation 11:2 has to involve something recorded in Luke 21. And since it obviously doesn't involve verse 20 in Luke 21, that means it has to involve what is recorded in verse 24 instead.

How is what I said here not clear enough? Am I not clearly making a distinction between the Jerusalem in verse 20 and verse 24? And did not I make it clear here that I am applying the Jerusalem meant in verse 24 to that of the holy city meant in Revelation 11:2?


What you and some others are not grasping, and maybe never will if you're unwilling to be objective here, is the following, which I already brought up earlier. You instead chalk it up to me being being hard to follow rather than you failing to be objective here.

Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.


Luke 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Verse 20 involves the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. In verse 24---and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled---this is no longer involving the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. This is meaning after it has been destroyed. It seems pretty silly to me that Jesus would mention this in verse 24 then never expand on it any further. He said Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Was the times of the Gentiles fulfilled once 70 AD concluded? No one but Preterists could possibly think so. The rest of us know that the times of the Gentiles did not end in 70 AD. What was Jesus meaning then when He indicated Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled?

At that point in time, meaning when Jesus was presenting the Discourse to His disciples, Revelation had not even been written yet. 2 Thessalonians hadn't been written yet either. So it's not like, at the time, that someone could consult Revelation in order to obtain further insight. At the time, there was what He said in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 to consider, though. Could any of that be expanding on what He was meaning? If no, what does one propose in the Discourse that might expand further on what He was meaning in Luke 24:24? I don't see anything in Luke 21 that might be expanding further on what He said in Luke 21:24. But I do see things in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 that could be Him expanding further on what He said in Luke 21:24 about Jerusalem being trodden until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

In the Discourse Jerusalem is attacked by Gentiles twice. The first time involved 70 AD. The 2nd time doesn't. It is meaning after 70 AD and that something Jesus said in the Discourse has to be expanding on it further, otherwise what is the point in even knowing about it if He doesn't ever expand on it any further in the Discourse? He just tells us that Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled, and just leaves it at that, never bothering to tell us what that might look like?

 

[Douggg]

Nice try. Jesus knew that many Jews who followed Him would continue to observe the Sabbath as they had always done. So, your argument here is invalid.

Give the scripture that support your statement.

Wait a minute. You are trying to tell me that you think Luke 21 was a completely separate discourse from Matthew 24 and Mark 13

Luke 21 is a parallel. Matthew and Mark are two different accounts credited to Matthew and Mark of what took place on the Mt. of Olives.

But, that is not the case. You are assuming that because of where He was when what is described in the previous verses was occurring. But, Luke simply did not include the detail that they were on the mount of Olives when He gave the discourse that Luke recorded in Luke 21.

No, Jesus was in the temple mount complex when he spoke the parallel in Luke 21. Evidenced by Luke 21:1-2.

1 And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury.

2 And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites.

After he was through speaking in the temple complex, he and the disciples left and spent the nights at the mount of Olives, Luke 21:37-38.

37 And in the day time he was teaching in the temple; and at night he went out, and abode in the mount that is called the mount of Olives.

38 And all the people came early in the morning to him in the temple, for to hear him.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

If I am hard to follow it's simply because I am better at expressing my thoughts in person rather than in typing.

Yes, exactly. You've told me that before. But here you are in this thread acting like you were being perfectly clear with what you typed. So, are you better expressing your thoughts in person than when you type them out or not? It's okay if that's the case, but it doesn't make sense for you to act like you're always clear on this forum even though you admit yourself that you have some trouble being clear in this format compared to in person.

If we were having these discussions face to face in person, you would easily be following me. That doesn't mean you would be agreeing with me then. I can easily without much effort express what I am meaning in person. That task is not as easy for me when trying to express what I'm meaning in writing.

That's fine, but then why act like it must be the case that I'm not reading what you're saying carefully instead of it instead being a case of you not being clear?

How is what I said here not clear enough? Am I not clearly making a distinction between the Jerusalem in verse 20 and verse 24? And did not I make it clear here that I am applying the Jerusalem meant in verse 24 to that of the holy city meant in Revelation 11:2?

You didn't make it clear that you believe the holy city of Revelation 11:2 is the new Jerusalem rather than earthly Jerusalem. You can think you were being clear about that if you want, but you were not.

What you and some others are not grasping, and maybe never will if you're unwilling to be objective here, is the following, which I already brought up earlier. You instead chalk it up to me being being hard to follow rather than you failing to be objective here.

You know what you do, though? You don't address any points I make specifically and you instead just go on making more of your own points. And, yet, you expect me to address your points specifically. How is that fair, David? That makes it a one way "discussion".

For example, I said this:

Yeah, I get now that you believe that, but it does not make any sense. Luke 21:24 is talking about something that would start happening in 70 AD. Revelation 11:1-2 is about the church of Christ consisting of Jew and Gentile believers. The church didn't start in 70 AD. So, the context of the 2 passages is simply not the same no matter how you look at them.

Do you have any thoughts on what I said above?

Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.


Luke 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Verse 20 involves the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. In verse 24---and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled---this is no longer involving the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. This is meaning after it has been destroyed. It seems pretty silly to me that Jesus would mention this in verse 24 then never expand on it any further. He said Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

He was simply referring to the land that the city Jerusalem that existed at that time was on would be trodden down of the Gentiles during the times of the Gentiles. I'm not sure what is hard to understand about that. Since Jerusalem did exist at the time He was speaking then He could still call it Jerusalem at that time even though it was going to be destroyed.

Was the times of the Gentiles fulfilled once 70 AD concluded? No one but Preterists could possibly think so. The rest of us know that the times of the Gentiles did not end in 70 AD. What was Jesus meaning then when He indicated Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled?

When did I say anything to indicate that I would think the times of the Gentiles were fulfilled in 70 AD? I didn't. I'm saying the times of the Gentiles BEGAN in 70 AD and we are still in the times of the Gentiles today.

At that point in time, meaning when Jesus was presenting the Discourse to His disciples, Revelation had not even been written yet. 2 Thessalonians hadn't been written yet either. So it's not like, at the time, that someone could consult Revelation in order to obtain further insight. At the time, there was what He said in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 to consider, though. Could any of that be expanding on what He was meaning? If no, what does one propose in the Discourse that might expand further on what He was meaning in Luke 24:24? I don't see anything in Luke 21 that might be expanding further on what He said in Luke 21:24. But I do see things in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 that could be Him expanding further on what He said in Luke 21:24 about Jerusalem being trodden until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

In the Discourse Jerusalem is attacked by Gentiles twice. The first time involved 70 AD. The 2nd time time doesn't. It is meaning after 70 AD and that something Jesus said in the Discourse has to be expanding on it further, otherwise what is the point in even knowing about it if He doesn't ever expand on it any further in the Discourse? He just tells us that Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled, and just leaves it at that, never bothering to tell us what that might look like?

What does any of this have to do with what we were previously talking about? Hey, if you want to think that you communicate clearly on here, so be it. But, I'm sorry, you don't.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Give the scripture that support your statement.

Why is that necessary? It's obvious that not all Jewish followers of Christ would want to give up keeping the Sabbath as they had done their whole lives.

Luke 21 is a parallel. Matthew and Mark are two different accounts credited to Matthew and Mark of what took place on the Mt. of Olives.

But, you are saying that Luke 21 is not the Olivet Discourse. So, you have this ridiculous belief that on 2 entirely separate occasions, the disciples were marveling at the temple buildings and Jesus told them they would be destroyed along with a bunch of other things that would occur. This means that you think the disciples were complete idiots who, despite already being told that the temple buildings would be destroyed, marveled at them again on another occasion and Jesus had to remind them again that the temple buildings would be destroyed. Do you really think they would have forgotten that? No chance! Do you even have any understanding of how ludicrous it is to believe that He would have given the same discourse twice?

No, Jesus was in the temple mount complex when he spoke the parallel in Luke 21. Evidenced by Luke 21:1-2.

1 And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury.

2 And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites.

After he was through speaking in the temple complex, he and the disciples left and spent the nights at the mount of Olives, Luke 21:37-38.

37 And in the day time he was teaching in the temple; and at night he went out, and abode in the mount that is called the mount of Olives.

38 And all the people came early in the morning to him in the temple, for to hear him.

No, Doug. Luke 21:37-38 is a case of Luke summarizing what Jesus did that day. In the day time he taught in the temple and that is recorded in Luke 20:1-Luke 21:4. At night he spoke on the mount of Olives where He gave His Olivet Discourse and that is recorded in Luke 21:5-36. Luke simply did not explain, as Matthew and Mark did, that the disciples made their comments about the temple buildings AFTER they had left the temple to go to the mount of Olives.

 

[Douggg]

No, Doug. Luke 21:37-38 is a case of Luke summarizing what Jesus did that day.

Luke 21:1-2 indicates Jesus was in the temple when he presented the Luke 21 parallel, not on the Mt. of Olives.

1 And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury.

2 And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites.

 

[Douggg]

Why is that necessary? It's obvious that not all Jewish followers of Christ would want to give up keeping the Sabbath as they had done their whole lives.

Present the scriptures that support your statement of....

"Jesus knew that many Jews who followed Him would continue to observe the Sabbath as they had always done"

...if you can't, just say so.

The Sabbath was required to be a day of rest under the old covenant. Do you believe the Jews who became Christians were still bound by the old covenant or were under the new covenant?

The point is that because them in Matthew 24:20 would be limited in their travel, if the abomination of desolation were placed on the temple mount courtyard where they could see it, if it took place on the Sabbath - indicates it is not referring to the church in Matthew 24:15-31.

___________________________________________________________

John Calvin, patriarch of covenant theology, in practice went by the old covenant in his desire that heretics be put to death. Servetus case in point. John Calvin was not a good guy.

 

[Timtofly]

This is truly unbelievable and pathetic. You're basically saying that Christ's first coming had no effect on the world and on Satan and didn't change a thing. Unbelievable!

Can you tell me how you interpret these passages:

Hebrews 2:14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.

1 John 3:8 The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work.

Colossians 2:13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

Ephesians 2:11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)— 12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

Not even the Hebrews took advantage of their "chosen of God" status, and that did not change after the Cross. They still are lost in their sins.

Do you think God actively campaigned against the Gentiles prior to the Cross? Because that is what you are insinuating.

You did not even address the change. If you think there was no Holy Spirit involvement prior to the Cross that is your free will ability to believe that. I do not accept the Holy Spirit is a dispensational work of God, only available after the Cross.

You have claimed that those who do not accept your believe system give Satan too much power and credit. Then you turn around and promote him as some powerful entity with total control over the Gentiles. Is Satan now in total control of the Jews, and unable to touch any Gentiles?

It is a matter of perspective and I do not accept your perspective.

Humans have always had a choice between good and evil since Adam brought that knowledge into the world. Some want to divorce human morality from God's morality. Are you saying that Satan never let humans have morality and that changed in the first century? Are you also claiming a human heart cannot be deceitful until after the Cross? Before the Cross it was just Satan being deceitful?

If your only rebuttal is the word "pathetic", how would you respond to such a critique? Should I point out that you deny Christ even a 1000 year physical reign on earth, and then criticize me for pointing out that God actually came in physical flesh and died on the Cross as a physical Atonement. Was the first century just a spiritual metaphor, and thus a great spiritual change in human reality? Why do you reject every thought that brings God to earth and that physical reality and spiritual reality are both one equal creation? I would point out that in most mega churches today, the members have a form of godliness, but deny the power, the spiritual aspect, of that godliness. The church itself is in spiritual darkness today, if not more so than the 4000 years prior to the Cross. The difference today is no one has an excuse. Since that is the basis of your objection to most of my posts.

So no, I am not objecting to any Scripture you post when you think it points to an error in my perspective. God did remove the fact that God at one time had more respect for some than others. No one can claim they have more favors from God, and that is why I think your perspective is missing some points. Perhaps you can explain the OT dynamic more than you do, and then see why the change you claim is not about Satan as much as you are claiming. From my perspective Satan will only be bound, when Jesus Christ is physically reigning from Jerusalem. No one can prove they are serving Satan, because they would not be able to prove that unless they produce this unseen master. Satan could still be bound, as you claim, and it would not make a difference. It is a spiritual servitude. It is in the minds and hearts, not some physical connection. But instead of changing God's Word and trying to explain that Satan is just some entity on a long leash, I do not have to change any Scripture. Satan currently bound or free does not change that dynamic. You, on the other hand have to explain that Satan currently has no spiritual influence whatsoever. Otherwise being bound is as pointless as being on a long leash.

Satan has always had to ask God for permission to do anything. Satan is constantly non-stop many times per second, asking God for permission, because that is Satan’s mindset to constantly out wit God, with some request. To state Satan had free reign at any point in time is not found in Scripture. At no point has any of the Trinity given away full authority of any aspect of creation. The Nations have never been under the authority of Satan. They have just given him too much leeway in following his deception. All still had to answer to God, not Satan.

If you accept that Satan is the "Prince and power of the air", do you equate that to the fact, God never removed him from that position since creation? Has he been removed since Paul wrote that verse?

"And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:"

Paul indicates the difference is with the "you". Paul did not declare a change in Satan's status.

 

[DavidPT]

You are hilarious. Who refers to the new Jerusalem as just "Jerusalem"? No one except you, apparently. I'm sure others here would agree with me on this one that a reference to Jerusalem without specifying which one implies that you're talking about earthly Jerusalem. So, this is on you for not being clear.

Story of my life---when I'm not intending to be funny I'm the funniest person on the planet. When I'm intending to be funny I'm not even funny.

I think I see where some of the problem is now. You seem to think that Jerusalem can only be understood as either earthly Jerusalem or as new Jerusalem, therefore, there is no other sense it can be understood in, therefore so must I take it to only mean either one of those. As to Revelation 11:2 I take it to mean neither one since I am applying it to what is meant in Luke 21:24 and this--- and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

To me it does not make sense, per Luke 21:24---and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled---is meaning this---and earthly Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled---if Luke 21:20 records Jerusalem having been destroyed, and that verse 24 is meaning a time after it had been destroyed. Nor am I seeing it making sense, per Luke 21:24---and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled---if it is meaning this---and new Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. If the holy city is meaning it's occupants though, the church on earth in this case, then I can see Luke 21:24 making sense if it is meaning this--and the church on earth shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

We have to consider that Revelation 11:2 tells us that this involves 42 months. 42 literal months? That, I don't know for certain. Maybe it is meaning 42 literal months, maybe it isn't. Regardless whether literal or not, it is meaning the same 42 months recorded in Revelation 13 though, where during that 42 months we are informed of this---And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them(Revelation 13:7). That to me sounds like this---and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

In 70 AD though, that never ended with the times of the Gentiles being fulfilled. In Matthew 24 it does end with the times of the Gentiles being fulfilled the fact that immediately after the trib of those days, meaning the GT recorded in Matthew 24:21(and you can dispute that all you want and I will still never be convinced that the trib of those days is not meaning the GT recorded in that verse). the sun shall be darkened, followed by the sign of the coming of the Son of man, followed by His actual coming, while in Luke 21, immediately after Jerusalem is destroyed, the sun does not go dark,followed by the sign of the coming of the Son of man, followed by His actual coming, but instead that is followed by what is recorded in Luke 21:24 where that is involving at least another 2000 years. In Matthew 24:29, that is not involving 2000 more years, that is involving the end of this age and that the 2nd coming is almost here at that point.


How then does it make sense that at the end of what is recorded in Luke 21:20 that there are still 2000 more years remaining, while at the end of the GT recorded in Matthew 24:21 there is not 2000 more years remaining, but instead, it is the end of the age and that the 2nd coming is literally at the door, if what is recorded in Luke 21:20 is supposed to be the same events recorded in Matthew 24:15-26?