Here's an idea then. Let's assume you are correct that Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20 involves great tribulation of unbelieving Jews in the first century where that then led to the slaughter of millions of them, or how ever many it was. Now make sense of some of this for me by providing your interpretation of verse 20 below.
Mark 13:20 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.
What this text seems to indicate to me, which might not be what it seems to indicate to you, is that the body count is going to be so astounding, that unless these days are cut short, there should no flesh be saved.
The context is that no flesh would be saved in Judea. He didn't say let those throughout the world flee when the abomination of desolation was seen standing in the holy place, He said let those in Judea flee when the abomination of desolation was seen.
But what flesh is this in regards to though, the fact the verse goes on to say, but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days?
It's in regards to anyone who was still in Judea. For various reasons, not all of the elect would be able to flee. Many older people or people with injured feet or legs and such would not be able to flee. And, as Jesus Himself indicated, pregnant women and nursing mothers would have trouble fleeing. And, if it happened during the winter or on the sabbath that would cause many to not be able to flee as well. So, since that was the case, God did not allow the Roman armies to kill literally everyone there since He didn't want them to kill all of the elect who were there.
What elect has He chosen? Whatever elect that is meaning, it is for their sake He has shortened the days.
The elect (Christians) in Judea, obviously. You're turning something simple into something convoluted for no good reason.
Unless the elect here are meaning the Jews, unbelieving Jews in this case, how does it make good sense of the text to cut short these days for the sake of someone not even being affected in those days in the same way the unbelieving Jews are?
The elect never refers to unbelievers.
The elect, if meaning saints, weren't getting slaughtered in record numbers in those days, if those days are pertaining to the first century and what ultimately happened in 70 AD, the unbelieving Jews were.
Yes, but some of them were likely being slaughtered since I'm pretty sure that the Roman armies didn't discriminate between Christian and non-Christian Jews.
Unless the elect in this verse are meaning the Jews, unbelieving Jews in this case, nothing in Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20 could remotely be involving events pertaining to the first century and what ultimately happened in 70 AD since it makes nonsense out of this part for one---no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.
It's only nonsense according to your doctrine, but from my view it makes perfect sense.
That is basically some of my reasoning for rejecting that Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20 are involving events in the first century and what ultimately happened in 70 AD.
In my opinion it's not very good reasoning and there are things that you seem to not have taken into consideration.
You OTOH reject this reasoning, for one, with the argument, how does it make any sense that Jesus never even bothered in Matthew 24 nor Mark 13 to answer the question involving the destruction of the temple?
Yeah. So far I don't see where you've given any kind of convincing reason why His answer to that question isn't recorded in Matthew 24 or Mark 13.
This is where your interpretation of verse 20 above is going to matter, because first you have to make sense of that verse in light of the fact, that in your view this is involving great tribulation of the unbelieving Jews in the first century, and not great tribulation of the church instead, and that verse 20 says that these days shall be shortened, for the elect's sake, whom He hath chosen.
You understand that the word tribulation simply refers to trouble, right? It's not as if it's a word that can only be used in reference to believers. The unbelieving Jews experienced tribulation at the hands of the Roman armies. It was God's will for that to happen as part of His wrath against those who rejected His Son.
So, now that I've answered your questions here, I have questions for you.
Can you lay out for me exactly when during the Olivet Discourse you think Jesus said what He did in Matthew 24:15-22/Mark 13:14-20 in relation to what He said in Luke 21:20-24 (based on your belief that those are not parallel passages)? I'm not asking you to put all the verses from Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 together in a timeline necessarily, but just something to give me an idea of when you think He said what He did in Matthew 24:15-22/Mark 13:14-20 and when He said what is recorded in Luke 21:20-24. I'm wondering if you think He said what is recorded in Luke 21:20-24 first and then later said what He did in Matthew 24:15-22/Mark 13:14-20 or what.
And, if you could tell me which verses in Luke 21 you think are parallel to verses in Matthew 24 and Mark 13, that would be helpful, too. It would be helpful because right now I can't make any sense out of the idea that Jesus said "When you see...then let those in Judea flee to the mountains...But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days!" on 2 separate occasions during the Olivet Discourse.
