This generation

[Spiritual Jew]

jesus didn’t mention the bodily resurrection of the dead, nor the age to come in the olivet discourse. Since i don’t believe the OD is about Jesus’ “second advent”, I don’t find this relevant to understanding “this generation”. I believe Jesus’ generation lived during the coming of Christ in judgement upon Israel at the end of the ages.

It's called interpreting scripture with scripture. The Olivet Discourse obviously relates to His coming at the end of the age. So, we should look at other scripture regarding His coming and the end of the age to aid our understanding of the OD. Determining when His coming at the end of the age would occur is vital to understanding when this generation would pass away, so I completely disagree with the idea that all these things are not related or not applicable to this thread.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

the biblical use of genea in the LXX and NT is always of contemporaries. That’s not “one of the definitions”, it’s THE definition for the Biblical use

What changes are whether these contemporaries are grouped together by genealogy, as in “14 generations from Abraham to David”

OR by characteristics, like “this wicked generation asks for a sign”

OR without reference to genealogy or characteristics like “this generation will not pass away”

OR in reference to a time span occupied by generations, an age, like Ephesians 3:5.

You're acting like you're stating a fact here when you're just giving opinions. You THINK the word is always used to specifically describe a group of people living at a certain time, but I disagree.

He referred to "this generation" as being a type of people who were wicked, sinful and adulterous. The type of people who had existed ever since Cain killed Abel. Yes, Jesus predicted the destruction of those type of people in Jerusalem who lived at that time, but He also indicated that certain things would happen first before that type of people would pass away completely. Many of the wicked, sinful and adulterous Jews were killed in 70 AD, but not all of them. Some were taken captive and brought to other nations. They will not completely pass away until Jesus returns in the future which will bring an end to this temporal age and at which time heaven and earth, as we know them, will pass away.

I mean, I also believe the scriptures and Holy Spirit guide in my understanding.

I also think it’s important to let the Holy Spirit guide in learning how to understand that the Hebrews often prophesied in poetic and metaphorical language.

So do I, but I think you take it too far. There is no indication at all that Jesus was using such language when He said heaven and earth will pass away. And there's no indication of that in 2nd Peter 3, either.

I also think it’s important to the let the Holy Spirit guide in learning the languages that the scriptures were written in before being translated into English.

I believe you don't have as much of an understanding of those languages as you think you do. I believe it's more important to interpret scripture with scripture and in context and I don't think you're doing that in this case. I believe you are interpreting the OD in such a way that doesn't line up with what other scripture teaches about the end of the age (as Jesus understood it in particular) and about the coming of Christ and the gathering of the elect.

 

[Zao is life]

So, you apparently don't think His answer to the question of when the temple buildings would be destroyed was recorded in Matthew 24 and Mark 13, but was only recorded in Luke 21. But, I don't see any reason why Matthew and Mark would not have recorded His answer to that question. It's clear to me that Matthew 24:15-22, Mark 13:14-20 and Luke 21:20-24 are parallel passages.

Please don't ask me again to give a short answer, because clearly, some people read what is written and somehow believe it's all about the Lord's opening statement and nothing else, ignoring context and everything else that's written in all three records of the Olivet Discourse.

At the end of Matthew chapter 23 the Lord was in the temple and He has just told the religious leaders of the Jews that their house was going to be left to them desolate.

Then Jesus departs from the temple complex, walks down into the Kidron valley and up the Mount of Olives. With the magnificence of the temple complex in full view from the Mount of Olives (over the other side of the Kidron valley), the disciples remark to Him about how magnificent the temple complex is.

Matthew and Mark record what Jesus said about the fact that it was all going to be destroyed. He was repeating what He had just hours before told the religious leaders in the temple.

But reading on from there, Jesus clearly did not only speak about the destruction of the temple.

So what we see written (it is written) in Matthew and Mark's gospel, and from verse 9 of Matthew's record is what Jesus said about the tribulation His disciples would face at the time of the end (Matthew 24:14), which would occur when the gospel had been preached in all the world as a witness to all nations and they would become hated by all nations for His name's sake (Matthew 24:9-14), which would also result in many saints becoming offended and even betraying one another and hating one another.

The word "therefore" in verse 15 of Matthew 24 links what Jesus had been saying in verses 9-14 to this tribulation of the disciples that Jesus was speaking about (unless you choose to read something else into what is written).

Luke speaks a lot about the persecution the saints were going to suffer (Luke 21:12-19) and their redemption (Luke 21:25-28) .

But in-between the above verses, and in the same way that Mark uses "Markhan sandwiches" to speak about a subject, Luke then records what the Lord said about another related subject, then he returns to the first subject.

So in-between speaking about the persecution of the saints and their redemption, Luke also speaks about the destruction of the city of Jerusalem (Luke 21:20-24);

and what I take note of (and really don't care whether or not anyone else chooses to take note of it or not) is the fact that in verse 23 Luke writes:

"But woe to those who are with child, and to those suckling in those days! For there shall be great distress (ἀνάγκη anánkē) in the land and wrath (ὀργή orgḗ) upon this people." (Luke 21:23).

Wrath upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem is not the same as the persecution and tribulation of the saints recorded in Luke 21:12-19; Matthew 24:9-31, and Mark 13:11-23.

In Matthew 24:9-14, Matthew is writing about the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus (the elect).

Matthew 24:15-22 tells the disciples that when they therefore see the abomination of desolation stand in the holy place, they should flee Judea, because this will be a time of great tribulation, but the days will be shortened for the elect's sake.

Matthew 24:23-24 warns that false Christs and false prophets will appear showing great signs and wonders, so much so that if possible, they would deceive even the elect. This is the second time the appearance of false prophets is mentioned. The first time is in Matthew 24:11.

Matthew 24:29-31 tells us of Christ sending His angels to gather His elect immediately after the tribulation of those days.

The elect are shown to be present from the beginning of the (great) tribulation, to the end, and it is indeed the elect who are experiencing the (great) tribulation.

It's 100% clear to me that that though the thing that introduced this discourse was the Lord's statement regarding the destruction of the temple (by the way Jesus was also confirming Daniel 9:26-27), it was not primarily who was in view. It's the elect and what was to befall the elect that is the primary concern in the Olivet Discourse. But the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple is a related subject precisely because it was the Lord's statement about the fate of the temple that got the whole discourse going.

@Spiritual Jew So yes, according to what is written (it is written) after all three authors record Jesus' statement about the fate of the temple, only Luke says anything about Jerusalem after this - and then he is not even saying anything specifically about the temple either in Luke 21:20-24. He's writing only about the city.

So the city and the temple were going to be destroyed. The disciples got that. But Jesus was more concerned that the saints would know what would befall them at the time of the end, so Matthew 24:9-31 is all about the tribulation of the saints, and Mark's gospel follows the exact same structure. Luke also talks more about the persecution of the saints and their redemption that he speaks about the destruction of the city, and like Matthew and Mark, writes nothing again about the temple.

@Spiritual Jew I don't have to defend what I said above, because that's what's in the text, so it is written, and I never wrote it. I just believe it.

@Spiritual Jew At first I wrote that I did not like the word "apparently" in your question. This is because it gave your question an accusative tone. You could have just said, "So if I understand you correctly .."

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Please don't ask me again to give a short answer, because clearly, some people read what is written and somehow believe it's all about the Lord's opening statement and nothing else, ignoring context and everything else that's written in all three records of the Olivet Discourse.

But, I'm not one of those people so why are you saying that to me?

At the end of Matthew chapter 23 the Lord was in the temple and He has just told the religious leaders of the Jews that their house was going to be left to them desolate.

Then Jesus departs from the temple complex, walks down into the Kidron valley and up the Mount of Olives. With the magnificence of the temple complex in full view from the Mount of Olives (over the other side of the Kidron valley), the disciples remark to Him about how magnificent the temple complex is.

Matthew and Mark record what Jesus said about the fact that it was all going to be destroyed. He was repeating what He had just hours before told the religious leaders in the temple.

But reading on from there, Jesus clearly did not only speak about the destruction of the temple.

I didn't say that He did. You're talking to me as if I was a preterist, but I'm not. I've said I don't know how many times that I believe He talked both about a local event in and around Jerusalem that occurred around 70 AD AND about a global future event.

So what we see written (it is written) in Matthew and Mark's gospel, and from verse 9 of Matthew's record is what Jesus said about the tribulation His disciples would face at the time of the end (Matthew 24:14), which would occur when the gospel had been preached in all the world as a witness to all nations and they would become hated by all nations for His name's sake (Matthew 24:9-14), which would also result in many saints becoming offended and even betraying one another and hating one another.

Right. When He references "the end" in that passage, He must have been referring to the end of the age and we agree that the end of the age has not yet arrived.

The word "therefore" in verse 15 of Matthew 24 links what Jesus had been saying in verses 9-14 to this tribulation of the disciples that Jesus was speaking about (unless you choose to read something else into what is written).

What translation are you using that has the word "therefore" in verse 15? I don't agree with what you're saying there. I believe He transitioned to answering the first question the disciples asked at that point.

Luke speaks a lot about the persecution the saints were going to suffer (Luke 21:12-19) and their redemption (Luke 21:25-28) .

But in-between the above verses, and in the same way that Mark uses "Markhan sandwiches" to speak about a subject, Luke then records what the Lord said about another related subject, then he returns to the first subject.

So in-between speaking about the persecution of the saints and their redemption, Luke also speaks about the destruction of the city of Jerusalem (Luke 21:20-24);

and what I take note of (and really don't care whether or not anyone else chooses to take note of it or not) is the fact that in verse 23 Luke writes:

"But woe to those who are with child, and to those suckling in those days! For there shall be great distress (ἀνάγκη anánkē) in the land and wrath (ὀργή orgḗ) upon this people." (Luke 21:23).

Wrath upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem is not the same as the persecution and tribulation of the saints recorded in Luke 21:12-19; Matthew 24:9-31, and Mark 13:11-23.

Mark 13:18 Pray that this will not take place in winter, 19 because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again.

Why is the distress of Mark 13:19 different than the distress of Luke 21:23? Just because Mark didn't also add the word "wrath" doesn't mean the distress he wrote about wasn't the same distress related to God's wrath that Luke wrote about.

In Matthew 24:9-14, Matthew is writing about the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus (the elect).

Matthew 24:15-22 tells the disciples that when they therefore see the abomination of desolation stand in the holy place, they should flee Judea, because this will be a time of great tribulation, but the days will be shortened for the elect's sake.

What do you think the reason that those in Judea would need to flee? In Luke 21:20-24 the reason is made clear that it would be to avoid God's wrath. Why would the reason be any different in Matthew 24:15-22? I just can't understand how anyone would deny that Matthew 24:15-22 (and Mark 13:14-20) is a parallel passage to Luke 21:20-24.

At what point in the Olivet Discourse do you think Jesus said what is recorded in Matthew 24:15-22 in relation to what He said in Luke 21:20-24? Which did He say first? I'd be interested to see you lay out what you think He said when using Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21, but I realize that would be a lot of work.

Matthew 24:23-24 warns that false Christs and false prophets will appear showing great signs and wonders, so much so that if possible, they would deceive even the elect. This is the second time the appearance of false prophets is mentioned. The first time is in Matthew 24:11.

I see that as referring to things that would happen after the tribulation described in Matthew 24:15-22 was over.

Matthew 24:29-31 tells us of Christ sending His angels to gather His elect immediately after the tribulation of those days.

Not the days of Matthew 24:15-22, but the days of Matthew 24:23-24. Remember, the time just before His return is marked by increased wickedness and a mass falling away from the faith (2 Thess 2:1-12). The false Christs and false prophets Jesus talked about contribute to that.

The elect are shown to be present from the beginning of the (great) tribulation, to the end, and it is indeed the elect who are experiencing the (great) tribulation.

It's 100% clear to me that that though the thing that introduced this discourse was the Lord's statement regarding the destruction of the temple (by the way Jesus was also confirming Daniel 9:26-27), it was not primarily who was in view. It's the elect and what was to befall the elect that is the primary concern in the Olivet Discourse.

I agree with this. Did I ever say anything to indicate otherwise? I don't believe so. In my view I believe His answer to the question regarding the destruction of the temple buildings is found only in Matthew 24:15-22, Mark 13:14-20 and Luke 21:20-24. That's a small part of the Olivet Discourse. The rest of those chapters relate to His coming and the end of the age. But, to think that His answer to their first question regarding when the temple buildings would be destroyed is not recorded at all in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 does not make any sense to me.

But the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple is a related subject precisely because it was the Lord's statement about the fate of the temple that got the whole discourse going.

But, He was asked when that would happen. Why would His answer to that question not be recorded anywhere in Matthew 24 or Mark 13?

So yes, according to what is written (it is written) after all three authors record Jesus' statement about the fate of the temple, only Luke says anything about Jerusalem after this - and then he is not even saying anything specifically about the temple either in Luke 21:20-24. He's writing only about the city.

Obviously, the temple is within the city, so...what is your point there exactly? Anyway, I look forward to you giving an explanation as to why only Luke would have recorded His answer to the first question.

So the city and the temple were going to be destroyed. The disciples got that.

Yes, but they did ask Him when that would happen. You are coming across as if you don't acknowledge that they asked Him that, but I'm not sure. So, do you agree that they asked Him about that (not just that, but one of the two questions they asked)?

But Jesus was more concerned that the saints would know what would befall them at the time of the end, so Matthew 24:9-31 is all about the tribulation of the saints, and Mark's gospel follows the exact same structure. Luke also talks more about the persecution of the saints and their redemption that he speaks about the destruction of the city, and like Matthew and Mark, writes nothing again about the temple.

I don't have to defend what I said above, because that's what's in the text, so it is written, and I never wrote it. I just believe it.

I believe in the text as it is written, too, so there's no need to make comments like this. We just interpret what is written differently in part of the OD.

At first I wrote that I did not like the word "apparently" in your question. This is because it gave your question an accusative tone. You could have just said, "So if I understand you correctly .."

I certainly had no ill intentions by using that word. Isn't it better to say "apparently" than to just accuse you of saying something for certain? I said "apparently" because that's how it came across, but I wasn't completely certain. I realize the word "apparently" can sometimes be used in a condescending way, but that was not my intention.

 

[DavidPT]

What do you think the reason that those in Judea would need to flee? In Luke 21:20-24 the reason is made clear that it would be to avoid God's wrath.

This is an interesting point since it would certainly be true of what is recorded in Luke 21:20 and what all that involved. What about Luke 17 then?

Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
32 Remember Lot's wife.
33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.
34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
37 And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together.

Do you see any of that involving what Luke 21:20 is involving? In verse 31---he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back---none of that is recorded in Luke 21 anywhere. But it is recorded in Mark 13 and Matthew 24, and look where it is recorded in those accounts, it is recorded in a context involving an AOD. What do you make of all of that?

Obviously, and I don't even see how you could disagree, the above in Luke 17 involves something recorded in the OD.

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand: )
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:

Mark 13:14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:
15 And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of his house:

 

[parousia70]

So? Since no one knows the day or hour and there wasn't any set date for His coming at the end of the age (at which time heaven and earth and this generation will pass away) then not everything He said would be applicable to everyone. But, the potential was there since, again, there was no set time for Him to come.

There was a set time. Fixed, set, pre appointed, and it was about to happen:
Acts 17:31 YLT

because He did set a day in which He is about to judge the world in righteousness, by a man whom He did ordain, having given assurance to all, having raised him out of the dead.'

The thing that you and no other preterists can get around is that the end of the age has not yet come.

The end of the Mosaic Age has.

It was potentially applicable to everyone since no one knew when His coming at the end of the age would occur, but obviously things that happen shortly before His second coming at the end of the age don't apply specifically to everyone.

A day pre determined, FIXED in time, is NOT potentially applicable to everyone.

But, the fact is that He told everyone to watch and not just those He was talking to. What does that tell you?

It tells me me it wasn't JUST for the Apostles but for EVERYONE in their generation as well.

In what sense did Jesus come like a thief in 70 AD? Him coming like a thief implies that His coming would occur suddenly at a time when no one is expecting it. I don't see how that applies to anything that happened in 70 AD.

In Revelation 3:3, we see Jesus directly promising His thief's coming woudl befall real, air breathing, blood pumping, human beings alive in the first century.

Remember therefore how you have received and heard; hold fast and repent. Therefore if you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you.

If Jesus Didn't know, had no clue, was ignorant of the timing, as you claim, there is no way He could have promised it would come to pass for the first Century people at Sardis the way He did.

Yet, that's EXACTLY what He did.

What were those at Sardis to think if this in fact did not come to pass for them? That Christ issues empty threats? That He's a Liar? That He can't be Trusted?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

This is an interesting point since it would certainly be true of what is recorded in Luke 21:20 and what all that involved. What about Luke 17 then?

Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
32 Remember Lot's wife.
33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.
34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
37 And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together.

Do you see any of that involving what Luke 21:20 is involving? In verse 31---he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back---none of that is recorded in Luke 21 anywhere. But it is recorded in Mark 13 and Matthew 24, and look where it is recorded in those accounts, it is recorded in a context involving an AOD. What do you make of all of that?

Obviously, and I don't even see how you could disagree, the above in Luke 17 involves something recorded in the OD.

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand: )
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:

Mark 13:14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:
15 And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of his house:

Can you answer my question first, please? Thanks.

In case you don't know which question I'm referring to, I'm talking about this question: What do you think the reason that those in Judea would need to flee? I'm asking that question in relation to Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

There was a set time. Fixed, set, pre appointed, and it was about to happen:
Acts 17:31 YLT

because He did set a day in which He is about to judge the world in righteousness, by a man whom He did ordain, having given assurance to all, having raised him out of the dead.'

What day was that? Give me an exact date when this happened. Have you been judged already? Have you stood before Christ to give an account of yourself already? I don't think so. So, how did Acts 17:31 already happen when the context of the verse is in relation to the judgment of all people?

Acts 17:30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”

You didn't interpret the verse in context. The context is established when it talks about God's command for literally all people everywhere to repent. That establishes the scope of people that the passage is talking about. So, when it says God set a day to judge "the world" it's talking about a day when all people everywhere will be judged. Scripture talks about how all people will stand before the judgment seat of Christ to give an account of themselves (Romans 14:10-12, 2 Cor 5:10). That clearly has not yet occurred. That day is portrayed in Matthew 25:31-46 and Revelation 20:11-15. It will occur on "the last day" (John 12:48) which will be at the end of the age (Matt 13:36-43,47-50).

The end of the Mosaic Age has.

Where does scripture speak of the end of a "Mosaic Age"? If the old covenant was meant to be seen as an age, then it ended at the death of Christ, as scripture teaches (Colossians 2:13-14) and not in 70 AD. But, when Jesus spoke of the end of the age He spoke of the end of this temporal age when people get married and they die (Luke 20:34-36). And He indicated that the judgment of all people will occur at the end of the age. That has not yet occurred.

A day pre determined, FIXED in time, is NOT potentially applicable to everyone.

But Jesus didn't know when that day would occur, which is what He said no one knew the day or hour except for the Father. So, He spoke from that perspective.

It tells me me it wasn't JUST for the Apostles but for EVERYONE in their generation as well.

It was for everyone who would hear or read His words. He didn't know when it would occur, so He couldn't have only been speaking about people living at that time.

In Revelation 3:3, we see Jesus directly promising His thief's coming woudl befall real, air breathing, blood pumping, human beings alive in the first century.

Remember therefore how you have received and heard; hold fast and repent. Therefore if you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you.

If Jesus Didn't know, had no clue, was ignorant of the timing, as you claim, there is no way He could have promised it would come to pass for the first Century people at Sardis the way He did.

Yet, that's EXACTLY what He did.

What were those at Sardis to think if this in fact did not come to pass for them? That Christ issues empty threats? That He's a Liar? That He can't be Trusted?

We've already been over this more than once before. Have you forgotten what we talked about in relation to this? If you have, then I assume you'd forget again if we talked about it now, so I'm not going to waste my time. You're missing the context of that passage, which is not the same context as passages like Matthew 24:29-51, 1 Thess 5:1-9 and 2 Peter 3:3-13.

 

[DavidPT]

Can you answer my question first, please? Thanks.

In case you don't know which question I'm referring to, I'm talking about this question: What do you think the reason that those in Judea would need to flee? I'm asking that question in relation to Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20.

In order to be able to answer that, doesn't it seem reasonable to first consider all possible relevant passages? If we only look at these things in a vacuum, so to speak, thus only from the perspective of what is recorded in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21, what about what is recorded in Luke 17? While I do admit, that on the surface, the fleeing appears to be literal, meaning what is recorded in Matthew 24, therefore, it is is perfectly reasonable to assume first century events are meant, if the text is meant to be taken literally. But, if we consider Luke 17 as well, is that what we should really be concluding about the fleeing in Matthew 24, that is meaning in the first century and involves 70 AD?

Let's bring Luke 17 back into the mix for a moment.

Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

In Matthew 24 most of us, including you, take this to involve what happens to the lost once the coming in Matthew 24:30 has taken place. But what about this in Luke 17?

Luke 17:31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
32 Remember Lot's wife.
33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.

What would be the purpose of doing that once Christ has bodily returned? This sounds like something one would be doing before He actually returns. Look at verse 33. Where have we heard something along those lines before? How about the following?

Matthew 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

The context is involving discipleship, something relevant to before He returns in the end of this age, not after He returns. Therefore, Luke 17:33 doesn't fit with after He has returned, which means neither does Luke 17:31, and keeping in mind, in Matthew 24, what is recorded in Luke 17:31 involves the fleeing into the mountains.

 

[Hammster]

Most people here don't just answer questions, but also give feedback in response to points that someone makes as well. But, you're not that kind of person, apparently.

I post the way I post.

 

[Douggg]

I post the way I post.

new icon? What is it supposed to represent? Just curious.

 

[Hammster]

new icon? What is it supposed to represent? Just curious.

St. Louis Blues hockey.

 

[Douggg]

St. Louis Blues hockey.

Oh, thanks, for the education and information.

 

[Zao is life]

Fullness of the Gentiles wrote,
Matthew 24:29-31 tells us of Christ sending His angels to gather His elect immediately after the tribulation of those days.

What translation are you using that has the word "therefore" in verse 15? I don't agree with what you're saying there. I believe He transitioned to answering the first question the disciples asked at that point.

Mark 13:18 Pray that this will not take place in winter, 19 because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again.

Why is the distress of Mark 13:19 different than the distress of Luke 21:23? Just because Mark didn't also add the word "wrath" doesn't mean the distress he wrote about wasn't the same distress related to God's wrath that Luke wrote about.

What do you think the reason that those in Judea would need to flee? In Luke 21:20-24 the reason is made clear that it would be to avoid God's wrath. Why would the reason be any different in Matthew 24:15-22? I just can't understand how anyone would deny that Matthew 24:15-22 (and Mark 13:14-20) is a parallel passage to Luke 21:20-24.

At what point in the Olivet Discourse do you think Jesus said what is recorded in Matthew 24:15-22 in relation to what He said in Luke 21:20-24? Which did He say first? I'd be interested to see you lay out what you think He said when using Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21, but I realize that would be a lot of work.

I see that as referring to things that would happen after the tribulation described in Matthew 24:15-22 was over.

Not the days of Matthew 24:15-22, but the days of Matthew 24:23-24. Remember, the time just before His return is marked by increased wickedness and a mass falling away from the faith (2 Thess 2:1-12). The false Christs and false prophets Jesus talked about contribute to that.

I agree with this. Did I ever say anything to indicate otherwise? I don't believe so. In my view I believe His answer to the question regarding the destruction of the temple buildings is found only in Matthew 24:15-22, Mark 13:14-20 and Luke 21:20-24. That's a small part of the Olivet Discourse. The rest of those chapters relate to His coming and the end of the age. But, to think that His answer to their first question regarding when the temple buildings would be destroyed is not recorded at all in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 does not make any sense to me.

But, He was asked when that would happen. Why would His answer to that question not be recorded anywhere in Matthew 24 or Mark 13?

Obviously, the temple is within the city, so...what is your point there exactly? Anyway, I look forward to you giving an explanation as to why only Luke would have recorded His answer to the first question.

Yes, but they did ask Him when that would happen. You are coming across as if you don't acknowledge that they asked Him that, but I'm not sure. So, do you agree that they asked Him about that (not just that, but one of the two questions they asked)?

Please take note of the part of what you said I marked in red, because I'm going to come back to that. There are some things you are overlooking, beginning with what David said below:

This is an interesting point since it would certainly be true of what is recorded in Luke 21:20 and what all that involved. What about Luke 17 then?

Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.

31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.

There are another two things you are overlooking.

1. Grammar (which you are ignoring): Which tribulation is the Lord speaking about in Matthew 24:29, and whose tribulation is He speaking about?

It's the same tribulation that the words "and", "therefore", "for", "but" and "because" join the tribulation introduced in Matthew 24:9 to the tribulation of verse 21 and verse 29. There's only one tribulation being spoken about, and it's the tribulation of the saints:

Revelation 7:13-14 " And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they? And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of mégas thlîpsis (great tribulation), and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb."

Revelation 2:21 "Behold, I will cast her (Jezebel) into a bed, and them (those Christians) that commit adultery with her into mégas thlîpsis (great tribulation), except they repent of their deeds.

Matthew 24:21-22 "for then shall be mégas thlîpsis (great tribulation), such as has not been since the beginning of the world to this time; no, nor ever shall be. And unless those days should be shortened, no flesh would be saved. But for the elect's sake, those days shall be shortened.

Matthew 24:9 "Then they will deliver you up to thlîpsis (tribulation) and will kill you. And you will be hated of all nations for My name's sake. And then many will skandalízō, and will betray one another, and will hate one another."

Matthew 13:21 "But he has no root in himself, and is temporary. For when thlîpsis (tribulation) or persecution arises on account of the word, he immediately skandalízō."

The above are the only three times great tribulation is mentioned in the N.T.

Remember, the time just before His return is marked by increased wickedness and a mass falling away from the faith (2 Thess 2:1-12). The false Christs and false prophets Jesus talked about contribute to that.

Yes. COMMON THEMES: OLIVET DISCOURSE/THE FINAL SON OF PERDITION (2 Thessalonians 2)
Both passages involve the time of the end.
Both passages involve apostasy.
Both passages involve lawlessness of the part of Christians.
Both passages are talking about events leading up to the coming of the Son of man.
Both passages involve an abomination in the temple of God:

Daniel 11:36-37
And the king shall do according to his will. And he shall exalt and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper until the fury is fulfilled. For that which is decreed shall be done. He will not regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god. For he shall magnify himself above all.

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4
Let not anyone deceive you by any means. For that Day shall not come unless there first comes a falling away, and the man of sin shall be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, setting himself forth, that he is God.

I know that you are aware that the abomination that was set up in the second temple by Antiochus IV Epiphanes did not result in the destruction of the temple. After AE4 was booted out by the Maccabees, the temple was cleansed and re-consecrated to God.

The abomination that was set up by AE4 is written about in Daniel 8:11; Daniel 11:31; and Daniel 12:11. In chapter 12 the entire chapter is written in such a way as to project what was done by AE4 onto the end of this Age, and the time of the resurrection, where Daniel 12:7-10 even links to Revelation 10:5-7:

@Spiritual Jew I changed this paragraph below to make it clearer:

Compare Daniel 11:36-37 with 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 and Daniel 12:7-10 with Revelation 10:5-7 because they are talking about the time of the end of the Age and the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet standing in the holy place (let the reader understand).

And what the reader needs to understand is that the holy place mentioned in Matthew 24:15 is not the temple in Jerusalem mentioned earlier in the same passage, but the New Testament Temple.

There is one abomination (singular) being spoken of in Matthew 24:15, and it's not the overspreading of abominations written about in Daniel 9:27 associated with the destruction of the 2nd temple in Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

So why are the disciples told to flee Judea?

There is something we don't know yet, because the 7 thunders in Revelation 10 are still sealed (also Daniel 12 tlles us there is something still sealed), the mystery of God which He has declared to the prophets is not yet finished, and we will only know the answer to the question of "Why Judea?" when the 7th trumpet is beginning to sound or is about to sound.

Here's a maybe: Judea represents any city the saints are dwelling in:

7th bowl - the cities of the nations fall. There was no Dallas and Los Angeles and Miami and Sydney and Auckland and London when the Lord gave the Olivet Discourse. So maybe Judea represents all nations where the saints are dwelling.

But don't bet your dollars on a maybe.

I just can't understand how anyone would deny that Matthew 24:15-22 (and Mark 13:14-20) is a parallel passage to Luke 21:20-24.

You have Matthew 24:23 and following separated from Mathew 24:15-22 but linked with Matthew 24:9-14. The grammar itself in the passage betrays that as nonsense.

15 When ye therefore [oûn] shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand (KJV)

[*StrongsGreek*]
03767
οὖν oûn, oon
apparently a primary word;
(adverbially) certainly, or (conjunctionally) accordingly:--and (so, truly), but, now (then), so (likewise then), then, therefore, verily, wherefore.

You seem to have that "therefore" word linked to the destruction of the (Jerusalem) temple instead of to the verses that immediately precede verse 15. But the verses which precede verse 15 are introduced by the birth-pains which lead up to the time of the end (verse 14) and the tribulation of the disciples when they become hated of all nations for His name's sake.

So you ignore Matthew 24:4-14 in order to interpret the word "therefore" in verse 15 only in relation to the destruction of the (Jerusalem) temple (probably because you relate the abomination of desolation to that temple instead of to the New Testament Temple?).

@Spiritual Jew I added to this for you:
The Lord spoke about the destruction of the temple. His disciples did not only ask Him when this would take place but they also asked Him for the sign of His coming and the end of the Age. But the Lord was speaking about two different temples in two different "end of the Ages". The second temple being the only one that existed as the temple of God following the tearing of the veil in the first one.

It's 100% clear to me now that Matthew and Mark were far more concerned with recording what Jesus said about the coming tribulation of the disciples at the end of the Age, and telling them about this, than they were with what later generations would need to know about the destruction of the Jerusalem temple. Luke is the only one who interrupts this same theme of the tribulation of the disciples and their coming redemption with talking about the wrath of God to come upon Jerusalem.

An abomination placed in a temple is not an abomination to God unless it's placed in the temple of God. The temple of God became the New Testament temple following the death of Jesus, when the veil in the Jerusalem temple was torn.

 

[Zao is life]

He referred to "this generation" as being a type of people who were wicked, sinful and adulterous. The type of people who had existed ever since Cain killed Abel. Yes, Jesus predicted the destruction of those type of people in Jerusalem who lived at that time, but He also indicated that certain things would happen first before that type of people would pass away completely.

By the same token He would have referred to "Judea" when talking about the abomination of desolation because the church of God did not exist in all nations yet.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Fullness of the Gentiles wrote,
Matthew 24:29-31 tells us of Christ sending His angels to gather His elect immediately after the tribulation of those days.

Please take note of the part of what you said I marked in red, because I'm going to come back to that. There are some things you are overlooking, beginning with what David said below:

There are another two things you are overlooking.

1. Grammar (which you are ignoring): Which tribulation is the Lord speaking about in Matthew 24:29, and whose tribulation is He speaking about?

It's the same tribulation that the words "and", "therefore", "for", "but" and "because" join the tribulation introduced in Matthew 24:9 to the tribulation of verse 21 and verse 29. There's only one tribulation being spoken about, and it's the tribulation of the saints:

Revelation 7:13-14 " And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they? And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of mégas thlîpsis (great tribulation), and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb."

Revelation 2:21 "Behold, I will cast her (Jezebel) into a bed, and them (those Christians) that commit adultery with her into mégas thlîpsis (great tribulation), except they repent of their deeds.

Matthew 24:21-22 "for then shall be mégas thlîpsis (great tribulation), such as has not been since the beginning of the world to this time; no, nor ever shall be. And unless those days should be shortened, no flesh would be saved. But for the elect's sake, those days shall be shortened.

Matthew 24:9 "Then they will deliver you up to thlîpsis (tribulation) and will kill you. And you will be hated of all nations for My name's sake. And then many will skandalízō, and will betray one another, and will hate one another."

Matthew 13:21 "But he has no root in himself, and is temporary. For when thlîpsis (tribulation) or persecution arises on account of the word, he immediately skandalízō."

The above are the only three times great tribulation is mentioned in the N.T.

Yes. COMMON THEMES: OLIVET DISCOURSE/THE FINAL SON OF PERDITION (2 Thessalonians 2)
Both passages involve the time of the end.
Both passages involve apostasy.
Both passages involve lawlessness of the part of Christians.
Both passages are talking about events leading up to the coming of the Son of man.
Both passages involve an abomination in the temple of God:

Daniel 11:36-37
And the king shall do according to his will. And he shall exalt and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper until the fury is fulfilled. For that which is decreed shall be done. He will not regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god. For he shall magnify himself above all.

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4
Let not anyone deceive you by any means. For that Day shall not come unless there first comes a falling away, and the man of sin shall be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, setting himself forth, that he is God.

I know that you are aware that the abomination that was set up in the second temple by Antiochus IV Epiphanes did not result in the destruction of the temple. After AE4 was booted out by the Maccabees, the temple was cleansed and re-consecrated to God.

The abomination that was set up by AE4 is written about in Daniel 8:11; Daniel 11:31; and Daniel 12:11. In chapter 12 the entire chapter is written in such a way as to project what was done by AE4 onto the end of this Age, and the time of the resurrection, where Daniel 12:7-10 even links to Revelation 10:5-7:

@Spiritual Jew I changed this paragraph below to make it clearer:

Compare Daniel 11:36-37 with 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 and Daniel 12:7-10 with Revelation 10:5-7 because they are talking about the time of the end of the Age and the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet standing in the holy place (let the reader understand).

And what the reader needs to understand is that the holy place mentioned in Matthew 24:15 is not the temple in Jerusalem mentioned earlier in the same passage, but the New Testament Temple.

There is one abomination (singular) being spoken of in Matthew 24:15, and it's not the overspreading of abominations written about in Daniel 9:27 associated with the destruction of the 2nd temple in Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

So why are the disciples told to flee Judea?

There is something we don't know yet, because the 7 thunders in Revelation 10 are still sealed (also Daniel 12 tlles us there is something still sealed), the mystery of God which He has declared to the prophets is not yet finished, and we will only know the answer to the question of "Why Judea?" when the 7th trumpet is beginning to sound or is about to sound.

Here's a maybe: Judea represents any city the saints are dwelling in:

7th bowl - the cities of the nations fall. There was no Dallas and Los Angeles and Miami and Sydney and Auckland and London when the Lord gave the Olivet Discourse. So maybe Judea represents all nations where the saints are dwelling.

But don't bet your dollars on a maybe.

You have Matthew 24:23 and following separated from Mathew 24:15-22 but linked with Matthew 24:9-14. The grammar itself in the passage betrays that as nonsense.

15 When ye therefore [oûn] shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand (KJV)

[*StrongsGreek*]
03767
οὖν oûn, oon
apparently a primary word;
(adverbially) certainly, or (conjunctionally) accordingly:--and (so, truly), but, now (then), so (likewise then), then, therefore, verily, wherefore.

You seem to have that "therefore" word linked to the destruction of the (Jerusalem) temple instead of to the verses that immediately precede verse 15. But the verses which precede verse 15 are introduced by the birth-pains which lead up to the time of the end (verse 14) and the tribulation of the disciples when they become hated of all nations for His name's sake.

So you ignore Matthew 24:4-14 in order to interpret the word "therefore" in verse 15 only in relation to the destruction of the (Jerusalem) temple (probably because you relate the abomination of desolation to that temple instead of to the New Testament Temple?).

@Spiritual Jew I added to this for you:
The Lord spoke about the destruction of the temple. His disciples did not only ask Him when this would take place but they also asked Him for the sign of His coming and the end of the Age. But the Lord was speaking about two different temples in two different "end of the Ages". The second temple being the only one that existed as the temple of God following the tearing of the veil in the first one.

It's 100% clear to me now that Matthew and Mark were far more concerned with recording what Jesus said about the coming tribulation of the disciples at the end of the Age, and telling them about this, than they were with what later generations would need to know about the destruction of the Jerusalem temple. Luke is the only one who interrupts this same theme of the tribulation of the disciples and their coming redemption with talking about the wrath of God to come upon Jerusalem.

An abomination placed in a temple is not an abomination to God unless it's placed in the temple of God. The temple of God became the New Testament temple following the death of Jesus, when the veil in the Jerusalem temple was torn.

I have to disagree. The context of Matthew 24:15-22, Mark 13:14-20 and Luke 21:20-24 is clearly the destruction of Jerusalem.

In His discourse in Matthew 23:37-24:2 the Lord warns, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord (the second coming). 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.”

The religious Jews of Jerusalem were about to witness the destruction of their temple. Moreover, that ruination would remain in place from its demolition right up until the second coming of the Lord. The desolation of the temple significantly occurred on the wing of 40 years of idolatrous temple sacrifices (exactly a generation)? The statement “there shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down” was plainly referring to, and correlating with, the warning He had just made to the religious Jews about the impending destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. It was also a direct reference to Daniel 9.

Matthew 24:1-2 records, “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.”

Christ was specifically speaking here of “the buildings of the temple” not the city. You cannot anywhere find that Israel is described as this. This is literal precise detail!

Mark 13:1-2 records, “And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here. And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

In this parallel account, Mark corroborates the thought of Matthew.

Luke 21:5-6 records, “And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said, As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

The disciples then asked two questions in Matthew 24 in response to our Lord’s words.

Matthew 24:3 records:

1. “When shall these things be?”
2. “What shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?”

Mark 13:4 records:

1. “When shall these things be?”
2. “What shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled (finished or ended)?”

Luke 21:7 records:

1. “When shall these things be?”
2. “What sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?”

Christ addressed both questions and both eras in chapter 24. However, because of the intermingling of His response, many Bible students suffer great confusion in identifying what aspect of the teaching relates to AD 70 and what relates to the second coming.

In His response to the first question in Matthew 24:15-22, He spoke of the end of the 40 year probationary period (AD 70), saying, “When ye (the disciples) therefore shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, whoso readeth, let him understand: Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: For then shall be great tribulation [Gr. thlipsis], such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.”

Mark 13:14-20 says, “when ye (the disciples) shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains: And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of his house: And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to take up his garment. But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter. For in those days shall be tribulation (thlipsis), such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be. And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.”

This can only refer to the wrath of God being poured out on Jerusalem that destroyed the existing socio-political/cultural/religious system of Judaism, which was an offence to God. This people were decimated. Their religious system was effectively brought to nought. Nothing before AD 70, or after it, could compare in regard to the extent of its demise. Luke 21:20-24 reinforces that we are looking at AD 70.

Luke’s parallel passage, in Luke 21:20-24, records, “when ye (the disciples) shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! For there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. 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.”

Please note the close correlation between these 3 accounts of the same event - AD70. A comparison of these three parallel narratives will see the correspondence in teaching. Pay especial notice of what is highlighted in brown. This proves that this is an historic event that pertains to the judgment of Jerusalem as a punishment for their rejection of Christ and has been long fulfilled.

Whatever people are in view in whatever location (the Bible says Jerusalem and Judea not Johannesburg or Jaffa), they are limited if fleeing “on the sabbath day” (Saturday). This certainly isn't a restriction to American Christians, maybe Israeli ones. Now, why would such a matter be a limitation to one fleeing the great tribulation? Simple. Because of the strict Pharisaic Law in Israel at that time that restricted the actual distance a Jew could walk on the Sabbath day (Friday sunset to Saturday sunset), as it was a religious day of rest. Jews were only allowed to only walk three quarters of a mile on the Sabbath before they would break the day of rest. At the time of Jesus the Jewish authorities closed the gates of the city on the Sabbath; therefore flight from the city on that day would have been extremely difficult. How can the Futurists serious relate such a restriction (1) to the Church and (2) the period preceding "the end of the age"? This last assertion further supports the view that the Jewish capital is the setting and the Jews living in that city (prior to AD 70) are the subjects receiving this warning.

 

[DavidPT]

I have to disagree. The context of Matthew 24:15-22, Mark 13:14-20 and Luke 21:20-24 is clearly the destruction of Jerusalem.

Why is it a big deal to some of you, especially those of you who are not even Preterists, if the AOD in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 involves the end of this age, thus is not meaning in a literal sense? Some of you don't think what 2 Thessalonians 2:4, Revelation 13, and Revelation 17 record, to name a few, involve abominable acts, something far more abominable that what could have happened in 70 AD, assuming an AOD happened at the time? As if, anything involving 70 AD was more abominable than some of the following.

2 Thessalonians 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Revelation 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

Revelation 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.
6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

Revelation 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

According to some interpretations, such as yours, apparently this means Jesus wasn't even aware of any of the above at the time, He was only aware of supposed abominations having to do with what would happen in 70 AD.
As if, having an AOD take place in an obsolete useless temple makes some kind of sense.

Clearly, and even you obviously agree with this, the OD involves events during His ascension through His coming in the end of this age and what all He does once He arrives. But somehow Jesus neglected to include anything involving any of those chapters I just brought up. Maybe Preterists are correct after all in that case. Jesus was more concerned about what would happen in 70 AD than He was about what would happen because of what is recorded in these passages I brought up.

 

[parousia70]

Where does scripture speak of the end of a "Mosaic Age"?

Q: In what age was Jesus born?

A: The Old Testament Law Age:
"But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law [of Moses]" (Gal 4:4)

Q: At what point in that Old Testament age did Jesus appear, suffer, and die on the Cross?

A: "In these last days has spoken to us in His Son" (Hebrews 1:2). "But now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself" (Heb 9:26). "He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you" (1 Peter 1:20).

Q: What age were the apostles in at the time they asked Jesus, "Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"

A: as demonstrated above, They were in the Old Testament Age. Therefore their statement logically spoke of the signs accompanying the end of that Age.

There is no way, contextually, that the apostles were asking, and Jesus was answering, about the end of an age tha hadn't even begun, nor did the apostles have any idea WOULD begin, when they asked about "the end of the age".

They were clearly asking, and Jesus was clearly answering, about the end of the age they were born into and living in, when they asked about it's end.

The text gives us no other option.

If the old covenant was meant to be seen as an age, then it ended at the death of Christ, as scripture teaches (Colossians 2:13-14) and not in 70 AD.

13 And you, being dead through your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, you, [I say], did he make alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses;

Wait what? He's already made us alive and forgiven us all our tresspasses? How does that happen before Judgment? How is forgiveness metered out prior to Judgment? If we are not yet Judged, how are we forgiven? Maybe we're not really forgiven yet? is that your assertion?

We've already been over this more than once before. Have you forgotten what we talked about in relation to this? If you have, then I assume you'd forget again if we talked about it now, so I'm not going to waste my time. You're missing the context of that passage, which is not the same context as passages like Matthew 24:29-51, 1 Thess 5:1-9 and 2 Peter 3:3-13.

Right. I remember.
You assert that there are MULTIPLE comings of Christ as a thief throughout history. You have to assert that.
In Contrast, scripture uniformly teaches there is only one.
Scripture nowhere teaches that Christ comes as a theif multiple times. There is only one coming of Christ as a thief.

--Compare this--

1 Thess 5:2-5
2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. 3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. 4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. 5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.

--To This--

2 Peter 3:10
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

--and To this--

Revelation 3:3
3 Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.

I realize your doctrine is wholly dependent on there being multiple comings of Christ as a thief taught in Scripture. Unfortunately for your doctrine, they don’t exist.

Matthew 24:42-44 is exactly parallel to Revelation 3:2-4.
Matthew 24:42-44 is also exactly parallel to 2 Peter 3:10-12

I truly have no idea why you can’t recognize they all speak of the same “thief in the night” event.
wait.. yes I do have an idea why. Accepting the scriptural fact they speak of the same event, as they do, destroys your doctrine.

There is only one "coming of Christ as a thief" prophesied in scripture, not multiple.

Compare also to Thyatira where Jesus promised to come and kill off their false prophetess and her followers (Rev 2:20-25). Jesus gave her time to repent and she did not. Therefore Jesus promised to come kill her and her followers, and the godly ones in Thyatira were told to hang on for that coming (Rev 2:25)! I remind everyone reading here that Jesus could not lie to them or break his promises, else He is not Messiah. There is no way around this--Jesus Christ plainly applied his theif's coming to all the first-century Churches mentioned in Revelation. It is a simple fact.

 

[Zao is life]

I have to disagree. The context of Matthew 24:15-22, Mark 13:14-20 is clearly the destruction of Jerusalem.

The context is not "clearly" the case at all, because it's in truth not the case at all.

In the case of Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20 the only way what you say can be the case is if the Jerusalem temple that was destroyed in 70 A.D could still be called the holy place (Matthew 24:15) after the veil that was in that temple was torn in two.

Luke 21:23 does not talk about tribulation but specifically calls the great distress that was to come upon the people of Jerusalem in the day it was attacked, W R A T H coming upon the people. I'll come back to this below.

Orthodox Christian doctrine has always been that the Jerusalem temple ceased being the place of the holy presence of God from the day that veil was torn in two, and the Greek word used for the holy place and most holy place of the Jerusalem temple until the verses mentioning the tearing of the veil (naos), is only used after this in reference to the church and the temple in heaven.

God stopped dwelling in temples made with human hands in 30 A.D and the Jerusalem temple ceased being the holy place at the same time, on the same day, in the same hour (let the reader understand).

In Matthew 23 Jesus called the Jerusalem temple "Your house" when He told the Pharisees it was going to be destroyed. He did not say "God's house" is going to be destroyed".

There is also a huge difference between the abomination of desolation (singular), of which the type is the abomination set up by Antiochus and the anti-type is the final son of perdition of 2 Thessalonians 2,

and the abominations (plural) written about in Daniel 9:27 which were in the form of continued offering and sacrifices for sin, which for 40 years following the tearing of the veil continued to be offered in rejection of the Lamb of God in the very place which God handed over to be destroyed by the Romans.

There are only two New Testament references to tribulation experienced by non-Christians:-

1. Tribulation of all who do evil: Romans 2:9.

2. Tribulation of the world as repayment for bringing tribulation upon the saints: 2 Thessalonians 1:6.

There are no other New Testament mentions of tribulation as the experience of those who are not Christians, but here is the list of New Testament verses talking about the persecution and tribulation of Jesus, the apostles, and Christians:-

Persecution: Of Jesus: John 5:16

Persecution of Christians: Matthew 5:10-12; John 15:20; Acts 22:4; Acts 26:11; 1 Corinthians 4:12; 1 Corinthians 15:9; 2 Corinthians 4:9; Galatians 1:13 & 23; Galatians 4:29; Galatians 5:11

Persecution of the woman who gave birth to the Messiah: Revelation 12:13

Tribulation of apostles or Christians: Matthew 13:21 (Parallel: Mark 4:17); Matthew 24:9, 21 & 29 (Parallel Mark 13:19, 24); John 16:33; Acts 11:19; Acts 14:22; Acts 20:23; Romans 5:3; Romans 8:35; Romans 12:12; 2 Corinthians 1:4, 6 & 8; 2 Corinthians 2:4; 2 Corinthians 4:8; 2 Corinthians 4:17; 2 Corinthians 6:4; 2 Corinthians 7:4-5; 2 Corinthians 8:2; Ephesians 3:13; Philippians 1:16; Philippians 4:14; Colossians 1:24; 1 Thessalonians 1:6; 1 Thessalonians 3:3-4 & 7; 2 Thessalonians 1:4, 6-7; 2 Timothy 1:8; 2 Timothy 3:11; 2 Timothy 4:5; Hebrews 10:32-33; 1 Peter 5:9; Revelation 1:9; Revelation 2:9-10, 22; Revelation 7:14

Great Tribulation: Mentioned only three times in the New Testament and each time it's the experience of Christians: Revelation 2:22; Revelation 7:14; 3. 'Olivet Discourse': Matthew 24:21 *

* Luke uses the words great distress and wrath in Luke 21:20-24 (not the word tribulation).

Luke is clearly interrupting what he was writing about the persecution and tribulation and redemption of the saints at the end of the Age with Luke 21:20-24, to tell his readers of what was to come upon the people of Jerusalem when the armies gathered against the city. Two different themes in Luke 21: the tribulation of the saints, but wrath upon the unbelieving inhabitants of Jerusalem.

Matthew and Luke do not use the word wrath and make no distinction between the tribulation which began to be spoken of in Matthew 24:9 and Mark 13:9 and the adjective "great" in Matthew 24:21-22 which parallels with Mark 13:19-20. It's the tribulation of the disciples being spoken about, and it's in this context that Jesus gives the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place as THE sign that they should flee.

Let the reader understand what Jesus meant by the holy place.

 

[sovereigngrace]

The context is not "clearly" the case at all, because it's in truth not the case at all.

In the case of Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20 the only way what you say can be the case is if the Jerusalem temple that was destroyed in 70 A.D could still be called the holy place (Matthew 24:15) after the veil that was in that temple was torn in two.

Luke 21:23 does not talk about tribulation but specifically calls the great distress that was to come upon the people of Jerusalem in the day it was attacked, W R A T H coming upon the people.

Orthodox Christian doctrine has always been that the Jerusalem temple ceased being the place of the holy presence of God from the day that veil was torn in two, and the Greek word used for the holy place and most holy place of the Jerusalem temple until the verses mentioning the tearing of the veil (naos), is only used after this in reference to the church and the temple in heaven.

God stopped dwelling in temples made with human hands in 30 A.D and the Jerusalem temple ceased being the holy place at the same time, on the same day, in the same hour (let the reader understand).

In Matthew 23 Jesus called the Jerusalem temple "Your house" when He told the Pharisees it was going to be destroyed. He did not say "God's house" is going to be destroyed".

There is also a huge difference between the abomination of desolation (singular), of which the type is the abomination set up by Antiochus and the anti-type is the final son of perdition of 2 Thessalonians 2,

and the abominations (plural) written about in Daniel 9:27 which were in the form of continued offering and sacrifices for sin, which for 40 years following the tearing of the veil continued to be offered in rejection of the Lamb of God in the very place which God handed over to be destroyed by the Romans.

There are only two New Testament references to tribulation experienced by non-Christians:-

1. Tribulation of all who do evil: Romans 2:9.

2. Tribulation of the world as repayment for bringing tribulation upon the saints: 2 Thessalonians 1:6.

There are no other New Testament mentions of tribulation as the experience of those who are not Christians, but here is the list of New Testament verses talking about the persecution and tribulation of Jesus, the apostles, and Christians:-

Persecution: Of Jesus: John 5:16

Persecution of Christians: Matthew 5:10-12; John 15:20; Acts 22:4; Acts 26:11; 1 Corinthians 4:12; 1 Corinthians 15:9; 2 Corinthians 4:9; Galatians 1:13 & 23; Galatians 4:29; Galatians 5:11

Persecution of the woman who gave birth to the Messiah: Revelation 12:13

Tribulation of apostles or Christians: Matthew 13:21 (Parallel: Mark 4:17); Matthew 24:9, 21 & 29 (Parallel Mark 13:19, 24); John 16:33; Acts 11:19; Acts 14:22; Acts 20:23; Romans 5:3; Romans 8:35; Romans 12:12; 2 Corinthians 1:4, 6 & 8; 2 Corinthians 2:4; 2 Corinthians 4:8; 2 Corinthians 4:17; 2 Corinthians 6:4; 2 Corinthians 7:4-5; 2 Corinthians 8:2; Ephesians 3:13; Philippians 1:16; Philippians 4:14; Colossians 1:24; 1 Thessalonians 1:6; 1 Thessalonians 3:3-4 & 7; 2 Thessalonians 1:4, 6-7; 2 Timothy 1:8; 2 Timothy 3:11; 2 Timothy 4:5; Hebrews 10:32-33; 1 Peter 5:9; Revelation 1:9; Revelation 2:9-10, 22; Revelation 7:14

Great Tribulation: Mentioned only three times in the New Testament and each time it's the experience of Christians: Revelation 2:22; Revelation 7:14; 3. 'Olivet Discourse': Matthew 24:21 *

* Luke uses the words great distress and wrath in Luke 21:20-24 (not the word tribulation).

Luke is clearly interrupting what he was writing about the persecution and tribulation and redemption of the saints at the end of the Age with Luke 21:20-24, to tell his readers of what was to come upon the people of Jerusalem when the armies gathered against the city. Two different themes in Luke 21: the tribulation of the saints, but wrath upon the unbelieving inhabitants of Jerusalem.

Matthew and Luke do not use the word wrath and make no distinction between the tribulation which began to be spoken of in Matthew 24:9 and Mark 13:9 and the adjective "great" in Matthew 24:21-22 which parallels with Mark 13:19-20.

What you miss is that the temple and the holy place (that Jesus is talking about) were still in fact standing and functioning. What is more, He was still attending there in person to fulfill the festivals and old covenant traditions. He (notably) called it "my house" after this and just before His death. This negates your argument. There is no discrepancy and my posted argument still stands.