The last gasp of Imperialism in Europe?

[Laodicean60]

Who is "He"?

2Th 2:7
For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He[fn] who now restrains will do so until He[fn] is taken out of the way.

 

[Douggg]

"There will be one Second Coming," but "before then will [be] Jesus's coming..."

Amazing that you cannot see the contradiction in these two phrases. Essentially you are saying that there will be two second comings of Christ into this earth's affairs, but only one of them is entitled to be called "Second Coming." Gobblyspeak.

When Jesus comes for the rapture/resurrection event, we meet Him in the air, and go to heaven where Jesus has prepared a place for us.

Then when Jesus Returns, known as the Second Coming, He returns with His bride, the glorified saints of the rapture/resurrection event.

Jesus will set foot back on earth, the Mt. of Olives, and split it in half, making a valley for the Jews in Jerusalem held as hostages to escape through, in Zechariah 14.

 

[WilliamLhk]

When Jesus comes for the rapture/resurrection event, we meet Him in the air, and go to heaven where Jesus has prepared a place for us.

Then when Jesus Returns, known as the Second Coming, He returns with His bride, the glorified saints of the rapture/resurrection event.

Jesus will set foot back on earth, the Mt. of Olives, and split it in half, making a valley for the Jews in Jerusalem held as hostages to escape through, in Zechariah 14.

I agree with this course of events. However, the rapture/resurrection event is what begins the time of the "Second Coming." Which phrase, as I have pointed out, is unbiblical, and has brought about too much misunderstanding.

Who is "He"?

2Th 2:7
For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He[fn] who now restrains will do so until He[fn] is taken out of the way.

Short answer: what restrains lawlessness, and therefore the lawless one, is law, hence government (Romans 13:1-7), typically headed by a ruler. Which is why Jesus and Paul taught that rampant lawlessness will be a primary sign of the End Times.

 

[claninja]

Fulfilled immediately afterwards in His transfiguration on the mountain with Moses and Elijah, seen by Peter, James and John.

Many scholars have moved away from that interpretation due to Mark, which is believed to be the first gospel written, states “come with power”. The word “come” displaying completeness. The transfiguration did not demonstrate that the kingdom had come with completeness. The coming of the kingdom of God would come completely through the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, sending of the spirit, the going of the gospel to the nations, and ultimately in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70ad.

See the following scholarly commentaries:


Ellicot
“The immediate sequence of the vision of the Son of Man transfigured from the low estate in which He then lived and moved, into the “excellent glory” which met the gaze of the three disciples, has led not a few interpreters to see in that vision the fulfilment of this prediction. A closer scrutiny of the words must, however, lead us to set aside that interpretation, except so far as the Transfiguration bore witness to what had till then been the latent possibilities of His greatness. To speak of something that was to take place within six days as to occur before some of those who heard the words should taste of death (comp. John 8:52, Hebrews 2:9, for the form of the expression) would hardly have been natural; nor does the vision, as such, satisfy the meaning of the words “coming in His kingdom.” The solution of the problem is to be found in the great prophecy of Matthew 24. In a sense which was real, though partial, the judgment which fell upon the Jewish Church, the destruction of the Holy City and the Temple, the onward march of the Church of Christ, was as the coming of the Son of Man in His kingdom. His people felt that He was not far off from every one of them. He had come to them in “spirit and in power,” and that advent was at once the earnest and the foreshadowing of the “great far-off event,” the day and hour of which were hidden from the angels of God, and even from the Son of Man Himself (Mark 13:32). The words find their parallel in those that declared that “This generation shall not pass away till all be fulfilled” (Matthew 24:34). That such words should have been recorded and published by the Evangelists is a proof either that they accepted that interpretation, if they wrote after the destruction of Jerusalem, or, if we assume that they were led by them to look for the “end of all things” as near at hand, that they wrote before the generation of those who then stood by had passed away; and so the very difficulty that has perplexed men becomes a proof of the early date of the three Gospels that contain the record.”

Benson
“Accordingly the disciples saw their Master coming in his kingdom, when they were witnesses of his transfiguration, resurrection, and ascension, and the miraculous gifts of his Spirit conferred upon them; and lived to see Jerusalem, with the Jewish state, destroyed, and the gospel propagated through the greatest part of the then known world.”

Cambridge
“The expression is referred to (1) the Transfiguration, (2) the Day of Pentecost, (3) the Fall of Jerusalem. The last best fulfils the conditions of interpretation—a judicial coming—a signal and visible event, and one that would happen in the lifetime of some, but not of all, who were present.”

Pulpit
“This advent is doubtless the destruction of Jerusalem, which, as it occurred only some forty years after this time, some of his auditors, apostles and the multitude, would live to behold”

There is no evidence that they ever proselytized any of the cities of Judah/Southern Israel in their day.

Right, doesn’t the passage say they would “not” go through all the cities of Israel before the son of man comes?

The "this [literally, the same] generation" refers to the generation of the fig tree putting forth leaves, which is End Times.

1.) Jesus did not say “that” generation. He said “this” generation. “That” would be more grammatically appropriate if he was talking about a future “fig tree” generation.

2.) Did Jesus’ generation experience wars, rumors of wars, famines, false prophets, persecution, the gospel going to the whole “oikoumene”, the end of the age, the destruction of the temple and city? If Yes, then “this” generation appropriately applies to Jesus’ generation that literally did live through those events.

 

[claninja]

However, Daniel 11:40ff., and many many passages in Revelation, as well as Jesus' own words about such things as all the tribes of the earth seeing Him coming on the clouds of heaven, and the sign of Son of Man appearing in heaven, and the time of trouble such as never was nor shall be again -- none of these prophecies can be credibly claimed to have been fulfilled before our day.

I would argue Jesus was alluding to the fulfillment of Zechariah 12, where the mourning “tribes of the land” refer to Israel.

 

[WilliamLhk]

Many scholars have moved away from that interpretation due to Mark, which is believed to be the first gospel written, states “come with power”. The word “come” displaying completeness. The transfiguration did not demonstrate that the kingdom had come with completeness. The coming of the kingdom of God would come completely through the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, sending of the spirit, the going of the gospel to the nations, and ultimately in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70ad.

If the kingdom had not come during Christ's ministry, then the Jews could not have rejected it, making statements like these false:
Matt. 21:43 Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.

1.) Jesus did not say “that” generation. He said “this” generation. “That” would be more grammatically appropriate if he was talking about a future “fig tree” generation.

2.) Did Jesus’ generation experience wars, rumors of wars, famines, false prophets, persecution, the gospel going to the whole “oikoumene”, the end of the age, the destruction of the temple and city? If Yes, then “this” generation appropriately applies to Jesus’ generation that literally did live through those events.

1) As I pointed out, aute, a reflexive particle, means "the same" generation, and the context is speaking of "the same" End Time generation of the prophecy.

2) Jesus' generation did not see the evangelization of the whole inhabited earth, nor all of the scripturally-prophesied events for the end of the age.

 

[claninja]

If the kingdom had not come during Christ's ministry, then the Jews could not have rejected it, making statements like these false:
Matt. 21:43 Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.

1.) The coming of the kingdom of God with power is synonymous with Christ coming in his kingdom when we look at the parallel gospels. It makes zero sense for Christ to say “some standing here shall not taste death until it comes” in association with the timing of Christ coming in his kingdom IF Christ had already come in his kingdom.

Mark 9:1 1And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power.”

Matthew 16:28 28Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”


2.) I don’t agree with your understanding of Matthew 21:43 and your application of it in this situation. The planting of the vineyard is pretty unanimously understood as God forming the nation of Israel in the land as His people. It is the vineyard that is taken away from apostate Israel and given to a new nation- thus signifying that their complete and utter destruction demonstrates apostate Israelites are not his people just because they were descendants of Abraham. The planting of the vineyard is a completely different event than Christ coming in His kingdom.

1) As I pointed out, aute, a reflexive particle, means "the same" generation, and the context is speaking of "the same" End Time generation of the prophecy.

Right, “this” would grammatically refer to the generation standing in front of Jesus. If Jesus meant a different generation than the one in front him, “that” would be more appropriate.



And since Jesus’ generation did experience wars, famines, earthquakes, pestilence, persecution, false prophets, the gospel going to the whole oikoumene, and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, I completely disagree with your position.

2) Jesus' generation did not see the evangelization of the whole inhabited earth, nor all of the scripturally-prophesied events for the end of the age.

According to Paul, and contrary to your belief, it did.

Romans 10:17-18
17Consequently, faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. 18But I ask, did they not hear? Indeed they did:
“Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world (oikoumene).”i

Colossians 1:23 This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.

 

[WilliamLhk]

Right, “this” would grammatically refer to the generation standing in front of Jesus. If Jesus meant a different generation than the one in front him, “that” would be more appropriate.

And since Jesus’ generation did experience wars, famines, earthquakes, pestilence, persecution, false prophets, the gospel going to the whole oikoumene, and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, I completely disagree with your position.

Believe what you like. Meanwhile, signs of the end of the age are testifying something quite different, that is, of the "time of the end" world scenario portrayed in Daniel 11:40 ff.

 

[claninja]

Believe what you like. Meanwhile, signs of the end of the age are testifying something quite different, that is, of the "time of the end" world scenario portrayed in Daniel 11:40 ff.

i disagree with the hermeneutic of shoe horning one’s personal, and non inspired, opinions on current events into the Bible, as this has a 100 % failure rate beyond 70ad.

Was Jerusalem destroyed and did the temple fall within Jesus’ generation? Emphatically, yes.

 

[WilliamLhk]

i disagree with the hermeneutic of shoe horning one’s personal, and non inspired, opinions on current events into the Bible, as this has a 100 % failure rate beyond 70ad.

Was Jerusalem destroyed and did the temple fall within Jesus’ generation? Emphatically, yes.

Yes, Jerusalem was destroyed then, as prophesied in Daniel 9:26-27. But none of the "time of the end" events of Daniel 11:40ff. were fulfilled in that generation. They are still to come. Part of that prophecy foretells the resurrection of multitudes of the dead from their graves, something that certainly did not occur in the 1st century AD. That resurrection from the dead is also prophesied, by Paul in 1 Cor. 15, to take place at the Parousia of Christ.

Likewise, Jesus' visible coming in the clouds of heaven, and the great earthly and heavenly cataclysmic events prophesied in Matthew 24:29-30 = Rev. 6:12-13, did not take place in the 1st century AD.

As to prophesied events beyond 70 AD having been fulfilled after that era, you are wrong about the 100% failure rate. For one such example, the 7 Times prophecy of Leviticus 26 has been fulfilled in spades in within the last few hundred years. To see the rather detailed evidence for this in a 6-part blog, begin here:

The Prophesied Restorations of Israel and Judah After 7 Times

The Prophesied Restorations of Israel and Judah After 7 Times The 7 times prophecy of Leviticus 26 speaks of the judgment of all of the Israelites, that is, both Israel and Judah. God prophesied their expulsion from their lands to take place at the point when His chastisement of the people for th...

www.worthychristianforums.com

 

[claninja]

Yes, Jerusalem was destroyed then, as prophesied in Daniel 9:26-27. But none of the "time of the end" events of Daniel 11:40ff. were fulfilled in that generation. They are still to come. Part of that prophecy foretells the resurrection of multitudes of the dead from their graves, something that certainly did not occur in the 1st century AD. That resurrection from the dead is also prophesied, by Paul in 1 Cor. 15, to take place at the Parousia of Christ.

The olivet discourse does not mention the physical resurrection of once dead bodies coming up out of the ground or tombs, so I agree that didn’t happen on the first century.

Likewise, Jesus' visible coming in the clouds of heaven, and the great earthly and heavenly cataclysmic events prophesied in Matthew 24:29-30 = Rev. 6:12-13, did not take place in the 1st century AD.

The phrase “son of man coming on the clouds” In the olivet discourse is an allusion to Daniel 7:13. in the “old Greek” text, the passage says “on the clouds of heaven came one like a son of man as the ancient of days”.

keeping that in mind, In the Old Testament, it was only God who descended from heaven and rode on the clouds to judge (2 Samuel 22:10-11, Isaiah 19:1, etc….). These OT occurrences of God visibly riding on the clouds didn’t occur in a literal manner, but were instead poetic ways that ANE peoples described God coming in judging.

Therefore, since the Olivet discourse alludes to Daniel 7:13 and the son of man coming on the clouds as the ancient of days, I see no reason this shouldn’t be understood in the same manner as jesus descending from heaven and rising on the clouds to judge Jerusalem, in the same manner as God descending from heaven and riding on the clouds to judge in the OT. Additionally, this understanding doesn’t require any damage to be done to the straightforward reading of “this generation shall not pass away until these things occur”.

As to prophesied events beyond 70 AD having been fulfilled after that era, you are wrong about the 100% failure rate. For one such example, the 7 Times prophecy of Leviticus 26 has been fulfilled in spades in within the last few hundred years. To see the rather detailed evidence for this in a 6-part blog, begin here:

Leviticus 26 finds its fulfillment in the Babylonian exile. Additionally, the old covenant was done away with in the first century, so the blessings and cursings are no longer applicable post the first century.

 

[WilliamLhk]

The phrase “son of man coming on the clouds” In the olivet discourse is an allusion to Daniel 7:13. in the “old Greek” text, the passage says “on the clouds of heaven came one like a son of man as the ancient of days”.

This view is self-contradictory: the Son of Man here cannot be both sitting on the throne as the Ancient of Days and coming before Him at the same time!

The Greek version of Daniel varies more from the Hebrew text than any other book of the OT except Proverbs. It cannot be trusted.

keeping that in mind, In the Old Testament, it was only God who descended from heaven and rode on the clouds to judge (2 Samuel 22:10-11, Isaiah 19:1, etc….). These OT occurrences of God visibly riding on the clouds didn’t occur in a literal manner, but were instead poetic ways that ANE peoples described God coming in judging.

They were most certainly literal events in the lower heavenly realm. Only once, at Mount Sinai, did He descend all the way to show Himself in the physical realm. And only once more will He do so again, after the Last Shofar/Trump. All other times He was cloaked within the merkabah/heavenly chariot, as in Ezekiel 1 ff.

Leviticus 26 finds its fulfillment in the Babylonian exile. Additionally, the old covenant was done away with in the first century, so the blessings and cursings are no longer applicable post the first century.

So you profess the heretical doctrine of replacement theology, something which Paul explicitly denies in Romans 11:25-29.

 

[claninja]

This view is self-contradictory: the Son of Man here cannot be both sitting on the throne as the Ancient of Days and coming before Him at the same time!

The Greek version of Daniel varies more from the Hebrew text than any other book of the OT except Proverbs. It cannot be trusted.

I completely agree it doesn’t make sense that Christ is coming before the ancient of days and sitting on throne at the same time. It’s why it wouldnt make sense for Matthew to allude to the masoretic text version of Daniel 7 in the olivet discourse. That’s why it makes so much more sense that Matthew’s olivet discourse alludes the old Greek text of Daniel 7.

Since the NT authors often quote from the Greek translation I completely disagree with your position that it cannot be trusted.

They were most certainly literal events in the lower heavenly realm. Only once, at Mount Sinai, did He descend all the way to show Himself in the physical realm. And only once more will He do so again, after the Last Shofar/Trump. All other times He was cloaked within the merkabah/heavenly chariot, as in Ezekiel 1 ff.

God came visibly to Moses to establish the old covenant, and God came visibly through the flesh in Christ to establish the new covenant.

But…..I’m specifically talking about when God rides the clouds in judgement. For example:

This is an oracle concerning Nineveh
Nahum 1:3 The LORD is slow to anger but great in power; the LORD will not leave the guilty unpunished. His way is in the whirlwind and the storm, and clouds are the dust of his feet.

This is an oracle concerning Egypt:
Isaiah 19:1 1An oracle concerning Egypt.
Behold, the LORD is riding on a swift cloud and comes to Egypt;
and the idols of Egypt will tremble at his presence, and the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them.

David’s song about the defeat of Saul and his other enemies:
Psalm 18:9-12 9He parted the heavens and came down
with dark clouds beneath His feet.
10He mounted a cherub and flew;
He soared on the wings of the wind.
11He made darkness His hiding place,
and storm clouds a canopy around Him.
12From the brightness of His presence
His clouds advanced— hailstones and coals of fire.

Christ riding on the clouds, in the olivet discourse, is a time of judgment. So why would it be different than the OT times?

But if want literalness then you can look at Josephus and tacitus who record glittering armies in the sky during the destruction of Jerusalem.

So you profess the heretical doctrine of replacement theology, something which Paul explicitly denies in Romans 11:25-29.

My argument was that I believe the new covenant supersedes the old covenant, thus the blessings and curses as stated in Leviticus of the old covenant are no longer applicable to Gods people.

 

[WilliamLhk]

... it makes so much more sense that Matthew’s olivet discourse alludes the old Greek text of Daniel 7.

Since the NT authors often quote from the Greek translation I completely disagree with your position that it cannot be trusted.

If you want to believe that the story of Susanna, Bel, and the Dragon is Holy Writ, that's up to you.

But if want literalness then you can look at Josephus and tacitus who record glittering armies in the sky during the destruction of Jerusalem.

These were visions of heavenly things, not earthly. Unless you believe that physical horses ride around in the sky.

My argument was that I believe the new covenant supersedes the old covenant, thus the blessings and curses as stated in Leviticus of the old covenant are no longer applicable to Gods people.

If you want to annul God's prophecy of Leviticus 26 because it is within the Mosaic Torah, that's up to you. Very bad idea, IMHO.

 

[claninja]

If you want to believe that the story of Susanna, Bel, and the Dragon is Holy Writ, that's up to you.

This doesn’t address that the NT often quotes from the Greek translation.

Try to avoid red herring fallacies.

These were visions of heavenly things, not earthly. Unless you believe that physical horses ride around in the sky.

this doesn’t address my main point - which is that God came on the clouds in the OT in judgement of nations and enemies. Why should Christs coming on the clouds in association with jerusalem’s destruction be any different?

If you want to annul God's prophecy of Leviticus 26 because it is within the Mosaic Torah, that's up to you. Very bad idea, IMHO.

Gods prophesy in Leviticus was already fulfilled in the Babylonian exile.

The NT states in multiple occasions that the new covenant superseded the old covenant, so I disagree that the blessings and curses for obeying or disobeying the laws in Deuteronomy or Leviticus are still in play today.

 

[WilliamLhk]

This doesn’t address that the NT often quotes from the Greek translation.

Try to avoid red herring fallacies.

The NT does not quote from the LXX version of the book of Daniel, which was the issue here. And what I wrote was not a fallacy: the Septuagint version of Daniel contains added chapters that the Hebrew does not have. So if you claim that the LXX is the correct version, them you are claiming that the Hebrews deleted those added chapters!
You claim that the LXX was quoted in Matthew 24's Olivet discourse, without providing any evidence to prove your case, which I reject.

this doesn’t address my main point - which is that God came on the clouds in the OT in judgement of nations and enemies. Why should Christs coming on the clouds in association with jerusalem’s destruction be any different?

The NT does not anywhere say that Christ will come on the clouds of heaven for Jerusalem's destruction.

Gods prophesy in Leviticus was already fulfilled in the Babylonian exile.

False. The 7 times prophecy = 2520 360-day years: they were clearly fulfilled only after fulfilling that period of time, with extreme accuracy; not by the Babylonian era. Evidence posted here, for those who won't reject even looking at the evidence:
79. The Prophesied Restorations of Israel and Judah After 7 Times
Introduction to a six-part series of articles that show how national sovereignty was restored to the descendants of both the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah after the Lord’s prophesied period of 7 times [2520 360-day years] for their dispersions was fulfilled.
The Prophesied Restorations of Israel and Judah After 7 Times

80. The Prophesied Restoration of Israel After 7 Times, Part 1: 1578 – 1744 AD
https://www.worthychristianforums.com/blogs/entry/2848-the-prophesied-restoration-of-israel-after-7-times-part-1-1578-–-1744-ad/

81. The Prophesied Restoration of Israel After 7 Times, Part 2: 1754 – 1783 AD
https://www.worthychristianforums.com/blogs/entry/2849-the-prophesied-restoration-of-israel-after-7-times-part-2-1754-–-1783-ad/

82. The Prophesied Restoration of Judah After 7 Times, Part 1: 1878 – 1897 AD
https://www.worthychristianforums.com/blogs/entry/2851-the-prophesied-restoration-of-judah-after-7-times-part-1-1878-–-1897-ad/

83. The Prophesied Restoration of Judah After 7 Times, Part 2: 1947 – 2000 AD
https://www.worthychristianforums.com/blogs/entry/2852-the-prophesied-restoration-of-judah-after-7-times-part-2-1947-–-2000-ad/

84. The Prophesied Restorations of Israel and Judah After 7 Times: Summary and Comparison
The Prophesied Restorations of Israel and Judah After 7 Times: Summary and Comparison

The NT states in multiple occasions that the new covenant superseded the old covenant, so I disagree that the blessings and curses for obeying or disobeying the laws in Deuteronomy or Leviticus are still in play today.

You are by these words defying what Paul wrote in Romans 11:25-29 :

11:25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26
And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come out of Zion, and He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; 27 For this is My covenant with them, when I take away their sins.” 28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

 

[claninja]

The NT does not quote from the LXX version of the book of Daniel, which was the issue here. And what I wrote was not a fallacy: the Septuagint version of Daniel contains added chapters that the Hebrew does not have. So if you claim that the LXX is the correct version, them you are claiming that the Hebrews deleted those added chapters!
You claim that the LXX was quoted in Matthew 24's Olivet discourse, without providing any evidence to prove your case, which I reject.

I meant In general. Since the authors of the NT often quote or allude to the Greek versions of the OT, I have no issues with the inspiration of the Greek texts that are quoted in the NT. This has nothing to do with “bel the dragon or Susanna”.

It’s argued that Matthew 24:30 is pulling from the “old Greek” of Daniel 7:13 and not the “theodotion Greek” or masoretic text because Matthew 24:30 says “on” the clouds. The theodotion Greek nor the masoretic text of Daniel 7:13 contain “on” the clouds.

Additionally, is the son of man coming on the clouds “to” the ancient of days in Matthew 24:30? If no, then it seems Matthew is not alluding to the theodotion Greek or masoretic texts, but the “old Greek” text instead.

The NT does not anywhere say that Christ will come on the clouds of heaven for Jerusalem's destruction.

The context of the Olivet discourse is the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.

False

True, you’ll find that the fulfillment of the lands sabbath rest was during the Babylonian exile.

You are by these words defying what Paul wrote in Romans 11:25-29 :

11:25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26
And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come out of Zion, and He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; 27 For this is My covenant with them, when I take away their sins.” 28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

None of the mentions that the curses of Leviticus are still applicable today for not following the law. The old covenant vanished and was done away with in the first century.

 

[RandyPNW]

If you believe these things, then by necessity you believe that the Church will go through the time of God's wrath, which begins at the sixth seal: "the great day of His wrath has come." Rev. 6:17 But "God did not appoint us to wrath." 1 Thes. 5:9
The Lawless One is pre-Parousia and therefore pre-wrath; whereas the Beast kingdom clearly is subject to the wrath.

Yes, sorry I've been out for 2 weeks. I am Postribulational in my eschatology, and believe the Church will experience the *time* of God's Wrath against the Beast, but not the "Wrath" itself.

What that means to me is that Christians will suffer the effects of God's judgment upon the Beast, but that makes us "collateral damage," or victims of "friendly fire," if you will? All through history God has poured out His judgment on ungodly regimes, following a period of patience, in which the few righteous among them suffer the same judgment without being the "targets" of that "Wrath."

Let's say God brings upon an ungodly nation many warnings of a coming earthquake by setting off earthquakes in harmless but nearby locations. Ultimately, He brings the "Big One," toppling entire cities, making casualties even out of the innocent.

The Prophet Jeremiah went through the "time" of Israel's judgment, suffering the same deprivation brought by the Babylonians upon Jerusalem and the kingdom. But he was not the "target" of God's Wrath--he just experienced it as a prophet would, bearing the effect of sins displayed by the majority.

I don't know what the Battle of Armageddon will entail specifically. Following 3.5 years of Antichrist's world domination from Europe I think kings from the East will rise up against him, and mobilization to Israel will require some time.

Then much of the world will suffer the effects of a nuclear war, making victims of both the guilty and the innocent. But the deaths of the wicked will result in their everlasting damnation, whereas the deaths of the righteous will be followed by their resurrection and vindication.

 

[WilliamLhk]

It’s argued that Matthew 24:30 is pulling from the “old Greek” of Daniel 7:13 and not the “theodotion Greek” or masoretic text because Matthew 24:30 says “on” the clouds. The theodotion Greek nor the masoretic text of Daniel 7:13 contain “on” the clouds.

Additionally, is the son of man coming on the clouds “to” the ancient of days in Matthew 24:30? If no, then it seems Matthew is not alluding to the theodotion Greek or masoretic texts, but the “old Greek” text instead.

Matthew 24:30 has nothing to do with Daniel 7, where Christ's coming in the clouds is to the throne of judgement in heaven to receive earthly dominion = Rev. 5:1-7. Matt. 24:30's coming is Christ's Parousia (24:3, 27) to earth = Rev. 6:16-17. So specifically stated in Mark 13:27. The resurrection of the dead is part of the Parousia, as so stated in 1 Cor. 15:23 and 1 Thes. 4:14.

The context of the Olivet discourse is the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.

No, the context is two-part for the two questions: when the Temple destroyed? and, what signs for the Parousia? Only Luke 21 has Jesus' reply to the first question; which temple destruction He said would take place "before all these things" of the time of the Parousia. 21:12 Which Parousia will not occur until "the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." 21:24

 

[WilliamLhk]

None of the mentions that the curses of Leviticus are still applicable today for not following the law. The old covenant vanished and was done away with in the first century.

The law was done away for ones in Christ. For those not in Christ, but in "blindness," "the...callings of God are irrevocable." Including the promise to inherit the land of their forefathers, after they have fulfilled the 2520 sacred years of their rebellion.