The Olivet Discourse Cannot Be Divided!

[Straightshot]

"The Church is not a parenthesis in God's Plan"


It is .... exactly this dispensation of the Lord's grace that you live in

Once the Gentiles have been added to the Lord's true ecclesia, then He will deal with an Israel in blindness .... and a believing remnant will turn to Him [Romans 11:25-36]

Your replacement theology cannot be substantiated and is a total ruse

The Lord and His prophets are against you on this matter ... hands down

When the prophets speak you run and hide .... and your only way of reconciling your false dogma is to make metaphor and allegory out of their yet to be fulfilled projections related to their nation of Israel

 

[parousia70]

Yes, He means "near" there. Don't forget, the Discourse is broken in two parts -- a historical part and a future part.

Was it not ALL future to them when the discourse was given?

 

[dysert]

Was it not ALL future to them when the discourse was given?

Yes, it was all future to them, but only part of it remains future to us.

 

[precepts]

My opening statement:

Luk 12:1 In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.
Luk 12:2 For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known.
Luk 12:3 Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.
Luk 12:4 And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.
Luk 12:5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

For the haters, since we've been down this road before.

Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees!

Rom 9:29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.
Rom 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
Rom 9:31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
Rom 9:32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
Rom 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Who do you suppose that "stumbling block" is? And isn't Paul quoting Isa--h because he's establishing the fact that that was the time of the "remnant" being saved, instead of the whole nation becoming like Sodom and Gomorrah?

Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees!

Food for thought!

 

[parousia70]

"The Church is not a parenthesis in God's Plan"


It is ....

No, It's not. The Church IS the Plan (Eph 3:21)

The Church IS Remnant Israel.

The Church was never a parenthesis. It existed all the way back in Moses' time. Acts 7:38 speaks of "the church in the wilderness" with Moses. The "church" is not something separate from Israel, but rather is the remnant of the faithful within Israel.

Isaiah pointed out that in times of Israel's great apostasies, the faithful of the nation were reduced to a tiny remnant of elect ones (Isaiah 1:8-9). So it was in the first century, where Paul identifies himself as an example of the faithful remnant (Romans 11:1-5).

The apostles continually say that the members of the Nazarene sect (at first all Jewish but later with converts added in to their numbers) are the true elect ones (2 Tim 2:10; Col 3:12; Galatians 6:15-16; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Peter 2:9-10 ).

The Church is the faithful ones of Israel.

 

[parousia70]

Yes, it was all future to them, but only part of it remains future to us.

So why would near mean anything different to them than it should to us?

 

[dysert]

No, It's not. The Church IS the Plan (Eph 3:21)

The Church IS Remnant Israel.

The Church was never a parenthesis. It existed all the way back in Moses' time. Acts 7:38 speaks of "the church in the wilderness" with Moses. The "church" is not something separate from Israel, but rather is the remnant of the faithful within Israel.

Isaiah pointed out that in times of Israel's great apostasies, the faithful of the nation were reduced to a tiny remnant of elect ones (Isaiah 1:8-9). So it was in the first century, where Paul identifies himself as an example of the faithful remnant (Romans 11:1-5).

The apostles continually say that the members of the Nazarene sect (at first all Jewish but later with converts added in to their numbers) are the true elect ones (2 Tim 2:10; Col 3:12; Galatians 6:15-16; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Peter 2:9-10 ).

The Church is the faithful ones of Israel.

And with that, I'm out.

 

[parousia70]

And with that, I'm out.

I suppose If you can't take the scriptures I've cited here, and show us why they do not mean what I contend they mean, it's probably a good idea to leave the discussion.

 

[Job8]

The Lord's discourse is not divided .... and it is all about the time of the end still pending ... and not 70AD

While the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem (70 AD) is in the Olivet discourse, many of the other prophecies began to be fulfilled shortly thereafter (the beginning of sorrows), and many are yet to be fulfilled (the Great Tribulation and the Second Coming). So the issue of the Olivet Discourse not being divided makes no sense. It covers the time span from the First Coming of Christ to the Second Coming of Christ (and the establishment of His literal, physical Kingdom on earth).

 

[precepts]

While the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem (70 AD) is in the Olivet discourse, many of the other prophecies began to be fulfilled shortly thereafter (the beginning of sorrows), and many are yet to be fulfilled (the Great Tribulation and the Second Coming). So the issue of the Olivet Discourse not being divided makes no sense. It covers the time span from the First Coming of Christ to the Second Coming of Christ (and the establishment of His literal, physical Kingdom on earth).

So, you are saying the temple and city desolation wasn't a sign of Christ coming and the time of the end? And that when Christ said the "time was near," He was lying?

 

[Job8]

So, you are saying the temple and city desolation wasn't a sign of Christ coming and the time of the end? And that when Christ said the "time was near," He was lying?

Why do you put words in the mouths of others? What did Christ say and how should it be interpreted in the light of THE ENTIRE Olivet Discourse?

If you are referring to Lk 21:20, what the Lord said there was that when the Jews saw Jerusalem surrounded by (Roman) armies, they should know that the desolation thereof "was nigh" (was near), which is perfectly logical. And furthermore, when He said "your redemption draweth nigh" (Lk 21:28) and that the kingdom of God was "nigh at hand" (Lk 21:31) He was referring to ALL THE EVENTS ("when ye see these things COME TO PASS") preceding the Second Coming of Christ.

So to put things in perspective, the Olivet Discourse prophesied the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in 70 AD and ALL THE EVENTS leading up to the Second Coming of Christ. 70 AD was the START of the succession of events disclosed by Christ, NOT THE TERMINUS. The prophecies of Daniel and Revelation must be tied into these events to gain a better understanding, and the Olivet Discourse cannot be taken in isolation from all the other prophecies leading up to the Second Coming of Christ.

 

[Straightshot]

"So the issue of the Olivet Discourse not being divided makes no sense."


It makes perfect sense .... all of the discourse is about the time of the end of this present age still pending

None of the things projected have been fulfilled to this very day ... and there is still not one stone left standing on the mount .... and there will not be during the coming tribulation period

 

[BABerean2]

None of the things projected have been fulfilled to this very day ...

Really...

Then someone needs to change all of the history books, especially the writings of Josephus, because someone is very confused...


Luk 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.

.

 

[Straightshot]

Josephus was an unregenerate Jew .... not a Bible prophet

And much of what he claimed was totally made up and or false .... I have the book

Not a reliable source

 

[precepts]

Why do you put words in the mouths of others?

If I was putting words in your mouth, I wouldn't have placed question marks behind each statement.

What did Christ say and how should it be interpreted in the light of THE ENTIRE Olivet Discourse?

If you are referring to Lk 21:20, what the Lord said there was that when the Jews saw Jerusalem surrounded by (Roman) armies, they should know that the desolation thereof "was nigh" (was near), which is perfectly logical. And furthermore, when He said "your redemption draweth nigh" (Lk 21:28) and that the kingdom of God was "nigh at hand" (Lk 21:31) He was referring to ALL THE EVENTS ("when ye see these things COME TO PASS") preceding the Second Coming of Christ.

So to put things in perspective, the Olivet Discourse prophesied the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in 70 AD and ALL THE EVENTS leading up to the Second Coming of Christ. 70 AD was the START of the succession of events disclosed by Christ, NOT THE TERMINUS. The prophecies of Daniel and Revelation must be tied into these events to gain a better understanding, and the Olivet Discourse cannot be taken in isolation from all the other prophecies leading up to the Second Coming of Christ.

I don't think you realize what you're saying. You're quoting verses saying the kingdom was "nigh" and "nigh at hand," but your original statement is that there are prophecies yet to be fulfilled:

You said:
While the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem (70 AD) is in the Olivet discourse, many of the other prophecies began to be fulfilled shortly thereafter (the beginning of sorrows), and many are yet to be fulfilled (the Great Tribulation and the Second Coming). So the issue of the Olivet Discourse not being divided makes no sense.

- Which is why I asked you what I asked, because the prophecy doesn't leave a 2,000yrs gap between it, and there aren't any part of it yet to be fulfilled - thanks to Dan 7 and Revelation. You did point out Daniel and Revelation's ties to the prophecies, but I don't know if you realize that they're the reason why the prophecy is worded the way it is.

 

[BABerean2]

Josephus was an unregenerate Jew .... not a Bible prophet
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1431698694306-1'); });
And much of what he claimed was totally made up and or false ....

I also have the writings of Josephus in hard-bound form and on the computer from ESword.

What are you basing this claim on, or are you just blowing hot air?

.

 

[Job8]

Which is why I asked you what I asked, because the prophecy doesn't leave a 2,000 yrs gap between it, and there aren't any part of it yet to be fulfilled - thanks to Dan 7 and Revelation. You did point out Daniel and Revelation's ties to the prophecies, but I don't know if you realize that they're the reason why the prophecy is worded the way it is.

The fact that the Second Coming of Christ "with power and great glory" has NOT yet occurred is sufficient proof that all the prophecies of the Olivet Discourse would be fulfilled over a considerable period of time. We now know that over 2,000 years have already elapsed. The events of the 6th and 7th seals of Revelation are yet future, because those cataclysmic cosmic events have not occurred. See the correspondence between Mt 24:29 and Rev 6:12-14. The way to look at the Olivet Discourse is thus:

1st Coming of Christ--->AD 70-----------------------------> 2nd Coming of Christ.
PROPHECIES OF OLIVET DISCOURSE

 

[Straightshot]

"I also have the writings of Josephus in hard-bound form and on the computer from ESword.


So what .... the dude was not a Bible prophet

You follow some very dubious people instead of relying upon the Lord and His prophets .... no 70 AD in their views .... not one ounce

 

[precepts]

The fact that the Second Coming of Christ "with power and great glory" has NOT yet occurred is sufficient proof that all the prophecies of the Olivet Discourse would be fulfilled over a considerable period of time. We now know that over 2,000 years have already elapsed. The events of the 6th and 7th seals of Revelation are yet future, because those cataclysmic cosmic events have not occurred. See the correspondence between Mt 24:29 and Rev 6:12-14. The way to look at the Olivet Discourse is thus:

1st Coming of Christ--->AD 70-----------------------------> 2nd Coming of Christ.
PROPHECIES OF OLIVET DISCOURSE

If you had comprehended what I said, you wouldn't be saying what you're saying. Christ's return have no bearing on what the prophecy says. So, whether you believe 2,000yrs has passed and Christ haven't returned yet has no bearing on the fact the prophecy said his return and his kingdom were "nigh" and "at hand. Christ coming with power and glory does not affect what the prophecy dictates. And the prophecy does dictate the temple and city desolation to be a sign of his return and the end of the world. So, just because you think it's not fulfilled doesn't mean the prophecy doesn't say what it says, and that's the problem with Christianity today, ignoring facts that are the foundation of the matter, the root of the tree. You can't rightly interpret scripture if you skip over the preliminary facts which are:

Mat 24:3 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?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mat 24:19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
Mat 24:20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
Mat 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
Mat 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mat 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:
Mat 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Immediately isn't 2,000yrs. And like you said, the key to rightly interpreting the prophecy lies in Dan 7 and in Revelation. To say there are prophecies yet to be fulfilled is to ignore the fact.

 

[Job8]

To say there are prophecies yet to be fulfilled is to ignore the fact.

Quite the opposite. To ignore the fact that prophecies are yet to be fulfilled is to misunderstand and misapply Scripture. Or should we say fantasize? The key to the Olivet Discourse is the Second Coming of Christ. You have to go all the way down to Mt 24:30 to read about "the sign" of the coming of Christ. That is yet future.