The seventh seal opened and Revelation unfolds

[Jerryhuerta]

The Second Coming is not an answer to: "and what shall be the sign of thy coming,"

But Matthew 24:15 is an answer to "when shall these things be?" concerning the destruction of Herod's temple. Verse 3 is a compound question: when shall these things about the destruction of Herod's be and what are the signs of Christ's return and end of this age. The compound question supports prophetic telescoping.

 

[Timtofly]

But Matthew 24:15 is an answer to "when shall these things be?" concerning the destruction of Herod's temple. Verse 3 is a compound question: when shall these things about the destruction of Herod's be and what are the signs of Christ's return and end of this age. The compound question supports prophetic telescoping.

Jesus did not answer what they wanted to hear.

Jesus answered according to His Second Coming and what they needed to hear.

You want the answer to be only about a destruction. That cannot work. Jesus answered pointing to the time of His return, bypassing the destruction altogether.

Your telescoping also avoids 70AD (preterism), and looks to the future Second Coming. You just refuse to admit telescoping is just another word for futurism. A telescope refers to the time of the Reformation, and provides an historical connotation to avoid a futurism aspect.

 

[Douggg]

Matthew 24:2-3 is evidence that futurism or preterism can't surmount. The OD gives us the subject matter in verses 2-3, which determines we are dealing with prophetic telescoping. It affirms the historicist's interpretation.

Jerry, you are giving me a political speech. Telescoping can be in or out. How about prophesying, instead? I am not interested in engaging in your historist vs futurist vs preterist war. So save the words for someone else.

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?

Has not happened yet.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

The Second Coming is not an answer to: "and what shall be the sign of thy coming,"?

You add telescoping to God's Word. That is not written. You say telescoping is there, because you say it is there. Telescoping is not there. Any one can see that. Besides a telescope sees the future. You are just using a fancy word for futurism, instead of futurism. History is not looking forward, but looking backward.

Matthew 24:3 presents two questions. The first is:

Tell us, when shall these things be?

And the second question is:

and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

That's two questions!

The first ones' prepositional phrase, "these things" can only refer back to verse 2 as the stones being destroyed on the temple before them, Herod's.

Historicists have the context, syntax and rules of grammar in support of their interpretation. Futurism and preterism have circular reasoning; it is because we say it is.

 

[Timtofly]

Matthew 24:3 presents two questions. The first is:

Tell us, when shall these things be?

And the second question is:

and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

That's two questions!

The first ones' prepositional phrase, "these things" can only refer back to verse 2 as the stones being destroyed on the temple before them, Herod's.

Historicists have the context, syntax and rules of grammar in support of their interpretation. Futurism and preterism have circular reasoning; it is because we say it is.

In other words just pick and choose whatever historist make up in their minds.

Sure they asked. The point is Jesus was not obligated to answer when those stones would be torn down.

In fact, stones being torn down is not found any where in the OD. Jesus was talking about the disciples and their task to spread the Gospel even through troublesome times.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

In other words just pick and choose whatever historist make up in their minds.

Sure they asked. The point is Jesus was not obligated to answer when those stones would be torn down.

In fact, stones being torn down is not found any where in the OD. Jesus was talking about the disciples and their task to spread the Gospel even through troublesome times.

Making up things in one's mine is actually what futurist do. Your interpretation has Christ misinforming the disciples. The historicist's interpretation has Christ informing them.

Is that one of your rules of interpretation, the misinforming of those being addressed?

The question asked was WHEN would they see the stones being demolished and in your interpretation Christ misinformed them.

That is a crummy way to interpret scripture by any standard.

 

[Douggg]

Matthew 24:3 presents two questions. The first is:

Tell us, when shall these things be?

And the second question is:

and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

That's two questions!

The first ones' prepositional phrase, "these things" can only refer back to verse 2 as the stones being destroyed on the temple before them, Herod's.

Historicists have the context, syntax and rules of grammar in support of their interpretation. Futurism and preterism have circular reasoning; it is because we say it is.

Jerry, I don't think that (most) futurists disagree with the destruction of the second temple in the earlier verses of Matthew 24. The disagreement with historists, who hold your view, is over "when" Jesus's coming and the end of the world will be.

Why are you so opposed to that happening in our generation ? Can't you see that things are lining up that way ?

 

[Timtofly]

Making up things in one's mine is actually what futurist do. Your interpretation has Christ misinforming the disciples. The historicist's interpretation has Christ informing them.

Is that one of your rules of interpretation, the misinforming of those being addressed?

The question asked was WHEN would they see the stones being demolished and in your interpretation Christ misinformed them.

That is a crummy way to interpret scripture by any standard.

Jesus answered their question about the Second Coming and the end.

Why do you call that misinformation? Why call understanding the Second Coming and end "crummy"?

Why does your hermeneutic totally disregard the text as written? When Jesus spoke on the mount of Olives everything He mentioned was in the future. Even the Cross was still future.

Jesus was not telescoping the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem. Jesus avoided that question altogether, because they did not need that information. No one needs that information.

If it were not for a few historical accounts of Josephus and others, the world would have totally forgotten 70AD. You yourself don't claim 70AD is even that important. Yet you want the OD to only be about a question that Jesus Himself felt not worthy to address. Jesus answered the question about the Second Coming and the end. That is the text we have.

Jesus may very well have talked about 70AD and even the exact timing. The point is, that the Holy Spirit did not see fit to put that down in Scripture and the recollection of those thoughts when the actual spoken words were scribed onto a written manuscript.

You are the one demanding we ignore the text, and adhere to your opinion that describes a non-existing point. The text avoids giving an answer to "when shall these things be" .

"So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors."

This is in the text and context of those reading:

"Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."

This section is given to those who learn the parable. It is all one context. It was given after the sign of the Second Coming.

Now you can interpret that as directed at those disciples. Or interpret that as directed at the readers. When compared to other passages, Jesus never gave a parable to His disciples. They were always directed at the broader audience, in this case the readers of this body of text. Why would Jesus change His tactic just so modern humans can create an opinion? Are you going to claim Jesus deliberately gave His disciples a parable they could not understand? Jesus did not explain this parable in the text. Some today want to demand it was not even a parable.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

Jerry, I don't think that (most) futurists disagree with the destruction of the second temple in the earlier verses of Matthew 24. The disagreement with historists, who hold your view, is over "when" Jesus's coming and the end of the world will be.

Why are you so opposed to that happening in our generation ? Can't you see that things are lining up that way ?

Your responses indicate you don't read my posts well or you're just on comprehending. Again:

Telescoping is common practice among the prophets. They joined distant events in the same narration with those that were imminent. In the OD Christ is telescoping, joining distant events in the same narration with those that were imminent.

The imminent event was the destruction of the temple and Christ's warning that when they see the abomination of desolation written about by Daniel they are to flee Jerusalem.

The distant event is the signs of Christ's return and the end.

 

[Douggg]

The imminent event was the destruction of the temple and Christ's warning that when they see the abomination of desolation written about by Daniel they are to flee Jerusalem.

No.... the abomination of desolation not in the 70 ad event.

Desolation of Jerusalem, in 70ad, yes, Luke 21:20-21, when they see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, they should flee. But not the abomination of desolation at that time.

Matthew 24 does not contain a repeat of what Jesus said earlier in the temple courtyard in Luke 21 about the armies surrounding Jerusalem.

The abomination of desolation in Daniel 12:11-12 is time of the end, Daniel 12:4.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

Jesus answered their question about the Second Coming and the end.

Why do you call that misinformation? Why call understanding the Second Coming and end "crummy"?

Why does your hermeneutic totally disregard the text as written? When Jesus spoke on the mount of Olives everything He mentioned was in the future. Even the Cross was still future.

Jesus was not telescoping the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem. Jesus avoided that question altogether, because they did not need that information. No one needs that information.

If it were not for a few historical accounts of Josephus and others, the world would have totally forgotten 70AD. You yourself don't claim 70AD is even that important. Yet you want the OD to only be about a question that Jesus Himself felt not worthy to address. Jesus answered the question about the Second Coming and the end. That is the text we have.

Jesus may very well have talked about 70AD and even the exact timing. The point is, that the Holy Spirit did not see fit to put that down in Scripture and the recollection of those thoughts when the actual spoken words were scribed onto a written manuscript.

You are the one demanding we ignore the text, and adhere to your opinion that describes a non-existing point. The text avoids giving an answer to "when shall these things be" .

"So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors."

This is in the text and context of those reading:

"Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."

This section is given to those who learn the parable. It is all one context. It was given after the sign of the Second Coming.

Now you can interpret that as directed at those disciples. Or interpret that as directed at the readers. When compared to other passages, Jesus never gave a parable to His disciples. They were always directed at the broader audience, in this case the readers of this body of text. Why would Jesus change His tactic just so modern humans can create an opinion? Are you going to claim Jesus deliberately gave His disciples a parable they could not understand? Jesus did not explain this parable in the text. Some today want to demand it was not even a parable.

Simple, they asked "when shall these things be?" What precedes it is Christ's declaring that no stone would be left upon another.

Your interpretation has Christ misinform the disciples by talking about something out of context.

The historicist's interpretation has Christ informing the disciple about the destruction of temple in context, Herod's temple.

By your rules of interpretation Christ misinformed the people he was talking to.

By the historicist's rules of grammar, context and syntax Christ informed the people he was taking to about according to said rules.

 

[Douggg]

Telescoping is common practice among the prophets. They joined distant events in the same narration with those that were imminent. In the OD Christ is telescoping, joining distant events in the same narration with those that were imminent.

Jerry, the separation from the near events to distant events is Matthew 24:14.

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.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

No.... the abomination of desolation not in the 70 ad event.

Desolation of Jerusalem, in 70ad, yes, Luke 21:20-21, when they see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, they should flee. But not the abomination of desolation at that time.

Matthew 24 does not contain a repeat of what Jesus said earlier in the temple courtyard in Luke 21 about the armies surrounding Jerusalem.

The abomination of desolation in Daniel 12:11-12 is time of the end, Daniel 12:4.

Christ does not even commence his answer to the first question until verse 15! Verses 4-14 don't even broach the issue of what will happen to the temple in Jerusalem. He only begins to address the first question in verse 15 and continues through verse 22 and then he moves on.

You can pay lip service that the OD includes imminent phenomenon but you can't produce any. Verses 15-22 are the main verses that qualify as imminent and actually address the disciples' first question.

 

[Douggg]

You can pay lip service that the OD includes imminent phenomenon but you can't produce any.

Jerry, I have presented to you my chart table breaking down ALL of the verses in Matthew 24.

Near term events - Destruction of the Temple, verses 4-13
Long term events - verse 14
End times events - 15-51

Let's see you do the same, as above. List the verses in Matthew 24, grouped together in terms of near term, long term, end times events.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

Jerry, I have presented to you my chart table breaking down ALL of the verses in Matthew 24.

Near term events - Destruction of the Temple, verses 4-13
Long term events - verse 14
End times events - 15-51

Let's see you do the same, as above. List the verses in Matthew 24, grouped together in terms of near term, long term, end times events.





View attachment 319131

You're trying to side-step the issue.

Christ does not even commence his answer to the first question until verse 15! Verses 4-14 don't even broach the issue of what will happen to the temple in Jerusalem. He only begins to address the first question in verse 15 and continues through verse 22 and then he moves on.

Verify in the verses that precede and follow these verses where Christ addressed the first question.

BTW the gospels give different accounts of the event. Apologetics maintain that we can expect different details by different persons of the gospels.

 

[Timtofly]

Simple, they asked "when shall these things be?" What precedes it is Christ's declaring that no stone would be left upon another.

Your interpretation has Christ misinform the disciples by talking about something out of context.

The historicist's interpretation has Christ informing the disciple about the destruction of temple in context, Herod's temple.

By your rules of interpretation Christ misinformed the people he was talking to.

By the historicist's rules of grammar, context and syntax Christ informed the people he was talking to about, according to said rules.

Except any one reading your interpretation will be prepared for 70AD. They will not be prepared for the Second Coming, the final harvest/GT, and Satan's 42 months.

Jesus telescoped past any answer for the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem, and went straight to the jugular vein, the soon to happen Second Coming. The fig tree bloomed and we have a current generation that will not pass away, until all of the OD is fulfilled.

 

[Douggg]

You're trying to side-step the issue.

Christ does not even commence his answer to the first question until verse 15! Verses 4-14 don't even broach the issue of what will happen to the temple in Jerusalem. He only begins to address the first question in verse 15 and continues through verse 22 and then he moves on.

Jerry, I am not trying to side-step the issue.

Near term events - Destruction of the Temple, verses 4-13
Long term events - verse 14
End times events - 15-51

The destruction of the temple happened in 70 ad, 40 years there abouts after the olivet discourse was given by Jesus.

During that 40 years, in verses 4-13, Jesus describes what the disciples would go through. Do you agree or disagree ?

 

[Jerryhuerta]

Except any one reading your interpretation will be prepared for 70AD. They will not be prepared for the Second Coming, the final harvest/GT, and Satan's 42 months.

Jesus telescoped past any answer for the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem, and went straight to the jugular vein, the soon to happen Second Coming. The fig tree bloomed and we have a current generation that will not pass away, until all of the OD is fulfilled.

I'll deal with your misapprehensions presently.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

Jerry, I am not trying to side-step the issue.

Near term events - Destruction of the Temple, verses 4-13
Long term events - verse 14
End times events - 15-51

The destruction of the temple happened in 70 ad, 40 years there abouts after the olivet discourse was given by Jesus.

During that 40 years, in verses 4-13, Jesus describes what the disciples would go through. Do you agree or disagree ?

Actually, you continue to side-step the issue. I challenged you to show us where Christ addressed the first question in verses 4-14? You didn’t do it. (I think it’s the first question that you don’t like, just like Timtofly.) The first question is “when” will the “event” occur that demolishes Herod’s temple?

There is nothing in verses 4-14 that addresses this query. The subject matter in verses 4-14 concerns the sighs of Christ’s return, common to all people between the advents.

And of course, any analysis worth its weight in salt must agree that such an event is accompanied by much carnage and conflagration; hence the need to obey Christ and exit Jerusalem, which is precisely what is conveyed in verses 14-22. Josephus wrote, "Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them." The Romans were an abomination that caused desolation and magnified themselves “even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down” (Daniel 8:11).

The overwhelming evidence is that the little horn in Daniel 8 is the Roman Empire and any resemblance to Antiochus is not identity, as Rome fulfilled all and perfectly. What we have in Daniel concerning the little horn is a bipartite or composite symbol incorporating pagan and papal Rome. Papal Rome is the mirror image of pagan Rome, which gave it its power, seat, and great authority.

The historicist’s hermeneutics are the best means of unlocking Daniel and the Revelation. Futurism and preterism are bogus theories.

 

[Douggg]

Actually, you continue to side-step the issue. I challenged you to show us where Christ addressed the first question in verses 4-14? You didn’t do it. (I think it’s the first question that you don’t like, just like Timtofly.) The first question is “when” will the “event” occur that demolishes Herod’s temple?

There is nothing in verses 4-14 that addresses this query.
.

Yes verses 4-14 do. The temple was destroyed in 70ad, in that 40 years leading up to the destruction of the temple, verses 4-13 describe what the disciples would go through during that time?

The subject matter in verses 4-14 concerns the sighs of Christ’s return, common to all people between the advents.

Oh, so now you have become a futurist. While I am supporting the historist view of those verses.

And of course, any analysis worth its weight in salt must agree that such an event is accompanied by much carnage and conflagration; hence the need to obey Christ and exit Jerusalem, which is precisely what is conveyed in verses 14-22.

Verse 14 is long term, not historist view. The gospel of the kingdom is being preached throughout the nations even to this day. Tell me that is not true.

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.

The end of the age is end times, later days , latter years.
_____________________________________________________

The signal for the disciples and Jews of the first century to flee to the mountains is in Luke 21 - when they see Jerusalem surrounded by armies. Not the abomination standing in the holy place.

Josephus wrote, "Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them." The Romans were an abomination that caused desolation and magnified themselves “even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down” (Daniel 8:11).

You are taking what Josephus wrote - and adding your spin to it. In that quotation of Josephus, he did not write that the Romans were an abomination that caused desolation.

Daniel 8:11 is by the little horn person and that vision of him is time of the end IN THE TEXT of Daniel 8:17. Not first century.

The historicist’s hermeneutics are the best means of unlocking Daniel and the Revelation. Futurism and preterism are bogus theories.

Jerry, you are disregarding anything that has time of the end attached to it.

2Timothy2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Jerry, I divided Matthew 24 up, in timeline sequential order, as it should be.

Near term events - Destruction of the Temple, verses 4-13
Long term events - verse 14
End times events - 15-51

You, on the other hand are all over the place. You have...

Long term - verses 4-13
Near term - verses 15-22
End times - don't have a clue