The seventh seal opened and Revelation unfolds

[Douggg]

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. (Matthew 24:2).
There isn’t any literal or highly figurative language to follow to base the notion he is talking about a future temple. Verse 2 vindicates Christ is prophesizing about Herod's temple, not any future one.

I am not disagreeing with your interpretation of verse 2.

It is verses 14-31, that I am disagreeing with you on.

Prophetic telescoping is clearly indicated.

verses 15-31, Jesus telescoped to the end of the age, our times.

 

[Timtofly]

Many futurist’s notions are a farce concerning the OD (Olivet Discourse). Christ is not speaking about the destruction of a future temple but Harod’s in the OD. The “opening of the OD” informs us that Christ’s dialogue concerns the destruction of Harod’s temple at the first advent, and his return, two distant phenomena.

And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. 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. 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? (Matthew 24:1-3)​

Christ’s testimony affirms he is talking about the stones on Herod’s temple (See ye not all these things?), not some future rebuilt temple. This is called telescoping; you might have heard of it. 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.

Christ is merely shifting from one advent to the other in Matthew 24 verses 14 and 15. Verse 14 pertains to his second advent, while verse 15 transitions to the first again.

The phrase “When ye therefore shall see” in verse 15, does not pertain to the defilement of some future temple; Christ knows the disciples will not be around for that. Christ is speaking to the people of his generation because they witnessed the “no stone left upon another” event with Herod's temple.

Christ is not addressing some distant future temple in Matthew 24:15, which verses 1 and 2 affirm. The prophet’s method of telescoping is clearly indicated and affirms the historicist’s interpretation. It maintains the grammatical-historical hermeneutic and exposes the futurist and preterist’s doctrine as wood, hay, and stubble.

Where have I stated a future temple is destroyed?

The temple that Christ sets up will be the one Satan takes over and places the AoD.

The disciples were not around in 70AD, so that historical event did not pertain to them either.

The reader today will understand clearly when all these events take place.

 

[Douggg]

The temple that Christ sets up will be the one Satan takes over and places the AoD.

That Christians are "the temple of God" is a figure of speech.

The temple that will be the center of action during the forthcoming 7 year 70th week will be the one that the Jews are planning to build in Jerusalem on the temple mount.

The abomination of desolation statue image (prefigured what it will be, by what Antiochus did in Daniel 11:31) will be placed on the temple mount, where them living in Judaea can see it and flee to the mountains.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

Where have I stated a future temple is destroyed?

The temple that Christ sets up will be the one Satan takes over and places the AoD.

The disciples were not around in 70AD, so that historical event did not pertain to them either.

The reader today will understand clearly when all these events take place.

See my response to Doug.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

That Christians are "the temple of God" is a figure of speech.

The temple that will be the center of action during the forthcoming 7 year 70th week will be the one that the Jews are planning to build in Jerusalem on the temple mount.

The abomination of desolation statue image (prefigured what it will be, by what Antiochus did in Daniel 11:31) will be placed on the temple mount, where them living in Judaea can see it and flee to the mountains.

You write that you don’t disagree with my interpretation of Matthew 24:2 but your interpretation of verses 15-22 contradicts it. Verse 3 goes on to vindicate the proper interpretation of verses 15-22. After telling his disciples and bystanders that there would not be one stone left upon another of Herod’s temple, the disciples query him as to “when shall these things be?” in verse 3. This is the antecedent that futurists disregard to the determent of their doctrine. If verses 15-22 are not about Herod’s temple, then Christ never answered his disciples. Did he answer his disciples or not? The disciples asked Christ for further enlightenment about the destruction of Herod’s temple not some future one, made-up in an anachronistic doctrine.

Again, your doctrine is an anachronism in light of the grammatical-historical hermeneutic. Prophecy must primarily be understood by those to whom it was presented, and that is not maintained in an interpretation where the query of the disciples is not even addressed. The disciples queried when Herod’s temple would be destroyed, not some future one 2000 years later.

Telescoping requires joining distant events in the same narration with those that are imminent. You have no imminent events in your interpretation, merely a future one, which contradicts verse 34.

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. (Matthew 24:34)​

Futurism cannot stand against the preterist’s use of this verse. Historicism can defeat both preterism and futurism in light of the evidence of Christ’s use of prophetic telescoping.

 

[Douggg]

Prophecy must primarily be understood by those to whom it was presented,

No, prophecy must be understood by the context of the text.

Jerry, where you fumbled the ball is in verse 15. You did not go back to Daniel and research the two chapters which the abomination of desolation is written in the text.

1. the aod is found in Daniel 11:31, a historic event by Antiochus, of having a statue image of Zeus placed in the temple. Prefiguring what the end times aod will be - a statue image of the beast, placed on the temple mount, the holy place.

2. the aod is found in Daniel 12, time of the end for that chapter. The aod is found in Daniel 12:11-12. 1290 days from the time it is setup - to something. That something is the sign of the Son of man in heaven, the sixth seal event, and the Matthew 24:29 description, with the sign of the Son of Man, prophesied in Matthew 24:30a.

And 1335 days from the time the aod is setup to Jesus's return.

 

[Douggg]

Futurism cannot stand against the preterist’s use of this verse. Historicism can defeat both preterism and futurism in light of the evidence of Christ’s use of prophetic telescoping.

Jerry, you can use that cliche over and over, but it doesn't come close to a correctly done end times chart of events, which has the aod on it.

 

[Douggg]

You write that you don’t disagree with my interpretation of Matthew 24:2 but your interpretation of verses 15-22 contradicts it

Jerry, here is a table I made of the olivet discourse, and how the verses apply time-wise. You can click on any part of it to zoom in.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

No, prophecy must be understood by the context of the text.

Jerry, where you fumbled the ball is in verse 15. You did not go back to Daniel and research the two chapters which the abomination of desolation is written in the text.

1. the aod is found in Daniel 11:31, a historic event by Antiochus, of having a statue image of Zeus placed in the temple. Prefiguring what the end times aod will be - a statue image of the beast, placed on the temple mount, the holy place.

2. the aod is found in Daniel 12, time of the end for that chapter. The aod is found in Daniel 12:11-12. 1290 days from the time it is setup - to something. That something is the sign of the Son of man in heaven, the sixth seal event, and the Matthew 24:29 description, with the sign of the Son of Man, prophesied in Matthew 24:30a.

And 1335 days from the time the aod is setup to Jesus's return.

Your point 1 actually supports what I’m saying. The abomination of desolation does not have anything to do with Epiphany because of Christ’s testimony that the desolation was to be fulfilled in his imminent future, the destruction of Herod’s temple. You haven’t surmounted the ramifications of Matthew 24:1-3 and 34. Said texts and context support that Christ’s narration concerns Herod’s temple, not some future one.

As to Daniel 12, when joined to the NT evidence of Matthew 24:15-22, the result is that we are not dealing with a single person in fulfillment of the abomination of desolation but a religious political entity that spans centuries, which vindicates historicism and relegates futurism and preterism as wood, hay, and stubble for the fire on the Day of the Lord.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

Jerry, you can use that cliche over and over, but it doesn't come close to a correctly done end times chart of events, which has the aod on it.

Your end times charts are really amusing!

 

[Timtofly]

That Christians are "the temple of God" is a figure of speech.

The temple that will be the center of action during the forthcoming 7 year 70th week will be the one that the Jews are planning to build in Jerusalem on the temple mount.

The abomination of desolation statue image (prefigured what it will be, by what Antiochus did in Daniel 11:31) will be placed on the temple mount, where them living in Judaea can see it and flee to the mountains.

No, it is not built for nor by current human understanding, not even of the Jews. Matthew 25:31

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:"

Your interpretation reads:

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne built by a bunch of sinful Israelites attempting to honor God:"

That very well may be. But under the supervision of King Jesus after the Second Coming. No one knows who by or when this throne and temple will be built. That is the whole point about second guessing God's Word. Certainly today's religious Israelites are not going to build a temple with a throne for Jesus in it. They want to build the old mount Sinai temple with the bondage of sin and death.

That Temple was rendered obsolete by the Cross. No Israellite serious about a new temple currently accepts Jesus as the Messiah. So only after they realize who Jesus is, can they build such a building. Besides, it would be destroyed at the Second Coming any way. Jesus is going to change the geographical makeup of the whole area, and then build the throne and temple measured in Revelation 11.

Satan sits in that temple in Revelation 13, that comes after Revelation 11 chronologically. And Revelation 11 is after the Second Coming in the 6th Seal.

I never mentioned Satan sitting in a human heart temple. How is that even possible? Satan can only be in one location at any given moment of time. Satan is not like the Holy Spirit who can be in every human at the same time. Now Satan can get to places very quickly, constantly on earth, and constantly before God in heaven accusing us of our wrong doing before God. But sitting in each human's heart literally or symbolically is not an ability Satan has. Even Satan possessing or incarnating a human is literally not possible, nor allowed by God.

Luke 22:3

Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.

John 13:2

"And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him;"

Which one is literal and Satan's actual ability, and which one is symbolic, and not literally possible? Which one is a figure of speech, and which one literally happened?

They both are the same event put in words by two different authors. Satan is the being's given name of reference. The "devil" is just how Satan is viewed. Even in context and the authors writing style, it is interesting that John used literal actions and the word "devil" when normally like in Revelation John uses symbolism and "Satan" instead of "devil". We know that John uses both literal and symbolic text interchangeably. That is even seen in Revelation. But comparing the two verses above, one can still say Satan cannot possess nor enter any human. That is just a figure of speech. John also wrote about the same event and stated a literal more exact method of what actually happened. Satan did not enter Judas, but placed a thought into Judas' heart and mind, that Judas then acted on.

 

[Timtofly]

You write that you don’t disagree with my interpretation of Matthew 24:2 but your interpretation of verses 15-22 contradicts it. Verse 3 goes on to vindicate the proper interpretation of verses 15-22. After telling his disciples and bystanders that there would not be one stone left upon another of Herod’s temple, the disciples query him as to “when shall these things be?” in verse 3. This is the antecedent that futurists disregard to the determent of their doctrine. If verses 15-22 are not about Herod’s temple, then Christ never answered his disciples. Did he answer his disciples or not? The disciples asked Christ for further enlightenment about the destruction of Herod’s temple not some future one, made-up in an anachronistic doctrine.

Again, your doctrine is an anachronism in light of the grammatical-historical hermeneutic. Prophecy must primarily be understood by those to whom it was presented, and that is not maintained in an interpretation where the query of the disciples is not even addressed. The disciples queried when Herod’s temple would be destroyed, not some future one 2000 years later.

Telescoping requires joining distant events in the same narration with those that are imminent. You have no imminent events in your interpretation, merely a future one, which contradicts verse 34.

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. (Matthew 24:34)​

Futurism cannot stand against the preterist’s use of this verse. Historicism can defeat both preterism and futurism in light of the evidence of Christ’s use of prophetic telescoping.

Nope.

Jesus answered what they needed to know.

You claim Jesus answered what they wanted to know.

You need an answer related to Jesus' prediction about the temple.

You are the one misinterpreting which generation. Explain what a parable is doing in the middle of an answer given in private, to his disciples. Why do they need a parable? Did they need a parable related to their question about the Temple? Or was Jesus giving them information about the Second Coming and not 70AD at all.

Telescoping? That is not explained in the OD. Were the disciples aware of this telescoping phenomenon? Or is that just a modern thought construct?

How about the simple point, Jesus was talking about the Second Coming in the OD. He was not talking about 70AD at all.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

Nope.

Jesus answered what they needed to know.

You claim Jesus answered what they wanted to know.

You need an answer related to Jesus' prediction about the temple.

You are the one misinterpreting which generation. Explain what a parable is doing in the middle of an answer given in private, to his disciples. Why do they need a parable? Did they need a parable related to their question about the Temple? Or was Jesus giving them information about the Second Coming and not 70AD at all.

Telescoping? That is not explained in the OD. Were the disciples aware of this telescoping phenomenon? Or is that just a modern thought construct?

How about the simple point, Jesus was talking about the Second Coming in the OD. He was not talking about 70AD at all.

You simply have no evidence to the contrary. “God told they what they needed to know,” that’s your evidence. You’re funny.

Evidence is in the nature of context and grammar, like antecedents. The antecedent to the narration concerning the temple, such as verse 15, is Herod’s temple, established in verses 2-3.

As for verse 34, you’ll never convince anyone who has a modicum of comprehension that it means a generation 2000 years from Christ. Dispensationalists are a rare breed to take that hook line and sinker.

 

[Douggg]

Your point 1 actually supports what I’m saying. The abomination of desolation does not have anything to do with Epiphany because of Christ’s testimony that the desolation was to be fulfilled in his imminent future, the destruction of Herod’s temple.

Not in the 70ad future, but when the scriptures found in the book of Daniel indicate, which in Daniel 12 is time of the end. Daniel 12:4.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

Not in the 70ad future, but when the scriptures found in the book of Daniel indicate, which in Daniel 12 is time of the end. Daniel 12:4.

You have no real evidence, besides conjecture.

Historicists have Matthew 24:2-3, 34 as well as a mountain of evidence to tell us which future, and that is AD 70.

This evidence affirms we are not dealing with a single person in fulfillment of the abomination of desolation but a religious political entity that spans centuries, which vindicates historicism and relegates futurism and preterism as wood, hay, and stubble for the fire on the Day of the Lord.

 

[Timtofly]

You simply have no evidence to the contrary. “God told they what they needed to know,” that’s your evidence. You’re funny.

Evidence is in the nature of context and grammar, like antecedents. The antecedent to the narration concerning the temple, such as verse 15, is Herod’s temple, established in verses 2-3.

As for verse 34, you’ll never convince anyone who has a modicum of comprehension that it means a generation 2000 years from Christ. Dispensationalists are a rare breed to take that hook line and sinker.

Why would the Second Coming not work 2000 years after the Cross?

 

[Douggg]

You have no real evidence, besides conjecture.

Jerry, Daniel 12:4 and Daniel 12:11-12 is real evidence.

This evidence affirms we are not dealing with a single person in fulfillment of the abomination of desolation but a religious political entity that spans centuries,

The evidence, the verses in Daniel, are that the Antichrist person is time of the end. And is one person.

And the popes are not qualified to be the "Anti"christ person because they cannot become the king of Israel coming in his own name. They are not Jewish. And the wrong religion.

"Anti" a prefix meaning instead of, and/or, against.

Christ the king of Israel - Mark 15:32
Jesus of Nazerth, King of the Jews - John 19:19

Not only that, the center of action is in Jerusalem, not Rome. The two witnesses in Revelation 11 are in Jerusalem. In Zechariah 14, the nations come up against Jerusalem. Jesus returns to the Mt. of Olives in Jerusalem. The abomination of desolation will be setup in Jerusalem.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

Why would the Second Coming not work 2000 years after the Cross?

That's not the question at hand; stay on point. 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. All futurism and preterism have as evidence is circular reasoning; it says that because we say it does.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

Jerry, Daniel 12:4 and Daniel 12:11-12 is real evidence.


The evidence, the verses in Daniel, are that the Antichrist person is time of the end. And is one person.

And the popes are not qualified to be the "Anti"christ person because they cannot become the king of Israel coming in his own name. They are not Jewish. And the wrong religion.

"Anti" a prefix meaning instead of, and/or, against.

Christ the king of Israel - Mark 15:32
Jesus of Nazerth, King of the Jews - John 19:19

Not only that, the center of action is in Jerusalem, not Rome. The two witnesses in Revelation 11 are in Jerusalem. In Zechariah 14, the nations come up against Jerusalem. Jesus returns to the Mt. of Olives in Jerusalem. The abomination of desolation will be setup in Jerusalem.

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.

Daniel 9:24 is evidence that "until the Messiah" is to be interpreted as the anointing of Christ by John, which accounts for 3 1/2 years of the seventieth week.

Hebrews 10 affirms that it was Christ who established the covenant with many in the seventieth week which ended the lawful sacrifices and oblations in fulfillment of Daniel 9:27.

And according to Matthew 24:2-3, 15 it was the Romans placing of their standard in the holy place that fulfills the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel. There is much more in reference to this, but this suffices in the obliteration of the futurist and preterist circular reasoning.

All futurism and preterism have as evidence is circular reasoning; it says that because we say it does.

 

[Timtofly]

That's not the question at hand; stay on point. 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. All futurism and preterism have as evidence is circular reasoning; it says that because we say it does.

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.