This generation

[rwb]

So you'd say Isaiah 13:13 is NOT foretelling about the "Day of the Lord Coming as Messiah" then?

Therefore I will shake the heavens,
And the earth will move out of her place,
In the wrath of the Lord of hosts
And in the day of His fierce anger.

God is merely showing His people that Babylonians will also be punished. This message would be one of comfort to the people of God, knowing that the Almighty has not utterly forsaken or abandoned them altogether.

Isaiah 13:1 (KJV) The burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

They all did happen.

No, they didn't. The angels didn't gather the elect in 70 AD. It seems that all of the many English Bible translations translated the Greek word angelos as "angels" in Matthew 24:31. I just now looked at about 20 English translations and they all translate it as "angels". But, you expect us all to believe that you, and others who interpret Matthew 24:31 as you do, know Greek better than all of the English Bible translators?

Matthew 24:30-31 says that Jesus would come and send out His angels with a loud trumpet call to gather the elect. Hmmm.

1 Thessalonians 4:14 For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15 According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

Again, Matthew 24:30-31 describes a coming of Jesus accompanied by a trumpet call and the gathering of the elect. Just like the passage above. But, these passages are somehow not referring to the same event? I'm just baffled as to how anyone can come to that conclusion. How can we relate any two passages together if we can't relate Matthew 24:29-31 and 1 Thess 4:14-17 together?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

They were told to flee when they see the AOD, and Antiochus IV Epiphanes is the type of the man of sin, and the AOD has not yet occurred.

View attachment 315218
View attachment 315219
View attachment 315220
View attachment 315221

It seems you really are determined to ignore the fact that from Matthew 24:9 which speaks of the tribulation of the saints (not of the Jews), the rest of the passage is joined together by the words "and"; "therefore"; "but"; "for"' and "because". That's Matthew 24:29-31 and the same theme is continued beyond that including verse 34's "this generation".

You seem to have also fallen into the trap of not allowing the rest of the New Testament to interpret Matthew 24, but seek to isolate and interpret Matthew 24 on its own - and even if you do that, you are going to make yourself guilty of willful ignorance if you ignore the fact that Matthew 24:9 begins to speak about the tribulation of the saints and the elect continue to be mentioned throughout:

Matthew 24:9-14 talks about the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus (the elect). Matthew 24:15-20 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.

Great tribulation (megas thlipsis) is mentioned only three times in the New Testament and each time it's the experience of the saints. The other two are in the Revelation.

@Spiritual Jew Only Luke 21:20-24 speaks about the tribulation of the Jews and calls this period the great distress they would face when the wrath of God comes upon the city. The rest of Luke is talking about the persecution of the saints and their redemption at the time of the return of Christ, Matthew and Mark concentrate on the tribulation of the saints. Matthew mentions nothing about the tribulation of the Jews after recording the Lord's statement regarding the coming destruction of the temple.

I stopped reading after you said that I'm supposedly ignoring something. No, I'm not. It's very clear that Matthew 24:15-22, Mark 13:14-20 and Luke 21:20-24 are parallel passages and you should adjust your understanding accordingly, but go ahead and think otherwise if you want.

 

[Zao is life]

I stopped reading after you said that I'm supposedly ignoring something. No, I'm not. It's very clear that Matthew 24:15-22, Mark 13:14-20 and Luke 21:20-24 are parallel passages and you should adjust your understanding accordingly, but go ahead and think otherwise if you want.

It's very clear that those parallel passages are not only speaking about what was to befall the Jews.

But since you are getting yourself hyped already that's OK. You see only the parts you want to see, and I'll see everything it's saying.

@Spiritual Jew. Throw this post into your trash can also. It belongs there.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Using your Logic, when My wife was pregnant we would have had absolutely no way of knowing that sometime within approximately 9 months after conception, she was going to give birth.
By your logic, since we had no advance knowledge of the day or hour that birth would take place, it would be impossible for us to know anything true and correct about the general time frame.

Do I have that correct?

No, that's not what I was saying. I was speaking from the standpoint of not knowing when His coming at the end of the age and this generation (and heaven and earth) passing away would occur. You are the one who assumes He was talking about something that would happen within 40 years, not me. So, from the perspective of Him not knowing when it would occur, including not knowing that it would occur within 40 years, how could He know that this generation would pass away in the lifetimes of those who were physically in His presence when He was speaking?

I understand what you're saying, though. If it was true that this generation would pass away within 40 years of the time He was speaking, then He could say no one knew the day or hour even if they knew it would happen within 40 years.

But, again, we know that when He said "you" this and "you" that, He was not only talking to and about those living at the time, but was talking to "everyone" who would ever hear or read His words before His coming at the end of the age and this generation (and heaven and earth) passed away.

Mark 13:37 What I say to you, I say to everyone: ‘Watch!’”.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

It's very clear that those parallel passages are not only speaking about what was to befall the Jews.

But since you are getting yourself hyped already that's OK. You see only the parts you want to see, and I'll see everything it's saying.

Why have you resorted to being nasty all the time again like you used to be? I thought you had changed. My interpretation is based on everything that was said as well. Your false accusations against me that I'm ignoring things and only seeing the parts I want to see do nothing to support your interpretations or refute mine.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

How can you be 100% certain He was even meaning in a literal sense?

Because no other sense makes sense. How else can it be interpreted?

What about what He said in verse 29, for instance? Was He meaning in a literal sense that literal stars fall out of the sky?

Nope. What does that have to do with those in Judea fleeing to the mountains? It's not like I'm saying He never said anything figuratively.

The more I think about it though, based on your interpretation of 2 Peter 3:10, you very well might take that in a literal sense for all I know, that literal stars fall out of the sky.

LOL. No.

As to me, I don't take it to literally be meaning stars are falling out of the sky, because how is it that the stars can fall like that, but that the earth remains in it's place at the time?

That would be impossible.

When looking at the earth from the perspective of outer space surrounding it, the earth is just as much hanging in space as are the stars. If stars are literally falling, so should the earth be as well.

Right. Why would you think I wouldn't know this?

 

[Hammster]

I don't know what you're talking about. How did I not wait for your reply? Were you planning to reply again to that same post to address the rest of what I said?

You asked a question, and then kept posting.

 

[Zao is life]

Why have you resorted to being nasty all the time again like you used to be? I thought you had changed. My interpretation is based on everything that was said as well. Your false accusations against me that I'm ignoring things and only seeing the parts I want to see do nothing to support your interpretations or refute mine.

I know I should not have said that about you will make yourself guilty of willful ignorance. Too late once it's posted. I also know that's why you got your back up. I apologize.

We are not seeing the same things when we read the Olivet Discourse. I don't think you're seeing the whole picture, because your attention is on the unbelieving Jews and their tribulation in 70 A.D.

So I told you why (I did give the reason why) IMO the disciples being told to flee Judea when they see the AOD has nothing to do with the Jews, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

All three synoptic gospel accounts mention what Jesus said about the destruction at the beginning, but only Luke mentions Jerusalem and the great distress of its people when the armies gather around Jerusalem and attack it, and it's only a small part of his record of the Olivet Discourse (Luke 21:20-24). The rest of his record is about the persecution of the saints and their redemption. Read it again (I know you've read it many times but check how much Luke is saying about the persecution of the saints and their redemption and compare it with how much he said about the destruction of Jerusalem).

Matthew and Mark only speak about what Jesus said about the temple and the disciples' question at the beginning, but then mention nothing more about the unbelieving Jews of Jerusalem after that. They speak about the persecution and tribulation of the saints only, in the day they become hated of all nations for Jesus' name's sake. The AOD is mentioned in this context.

But my wording in my previous reply to you could have been a lot better. It's OK if you throw it that wording into your trash can.

 

[Hammster]

No, they didn't. The angels didn't gather the elect in 70 AD. It seems that all of the many English Bible translations translated the Greek word angelos as "angels" in Matthew 24:31. I just now looked at about 20 English translations and they all translate it as "angels". But, you expect us all to believe that you, and others who interpret Matthew 24:31 as you do, know Greek better than all of the English Bible translators?

Matthew 24:30-31 says that Jesus would come and send out His angels with a loud trumpet call to gather the elect. Hmmm.

1 Thessalonians 4:14 For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15 According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

Again, Matthew 24:30-31 describes a coming of Jesus accompanied by a trumpet call and the gathering of the elect. Just like the passage above. But, these passages are somehow not referring to the same event? I'm just baffled as to how anyone can come to that conclusion. How can we relate any two passages together if we can't relate Matthew 24:29-31 and 1 Thess 4:14-17 together?

I guess you weren’t really wanting a response from me. Let me know if you do.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

You asked a question, and then kept posting.

We're not allowed to say anything more in a post after asking a question? You like to mostly just do one liner posts, but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to be like that. It's possible to ask more than one question and make more than one point within the same post. And it's possible to answer more than one question and reply to more than one point in a post as well.

 

[Zao is life]

What do you think the reason is that Jesus said those in Judea had to flee to the mountains in Matthew 24:15-16 and Mark 13:14-15? Can it be for any other reason but to avoid God's wrath that came against Jerusalem by way of the Roman armies?

Yes it can be for another reason.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I guess you weren’t really wanting a response from me. Let me know if you do.

You are free to respond to that particular post or not. I don't really care either way. I didn't ask any questions there that I expect you to answer, so it's up to you if you want to say something in response to what I said in that post or not.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Yes it can be for another reason.

And what is that? Please be concise with your answer if you can. I don't feel like wading through a long answer to a simple question.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I know I should not have said that about you will make yourself guilty of willful ignorance. Too late once it's posted. I also know that's why you got your back up. I apologize.

Apology accepted. Let's try to be respectful. Our views on the OD are not really that far apart, so it's not something to get upset about.

We are not seeing the same things when we read the Olivet Discourse.

Clearly. I mean, we're seeing some of the same things, but not always.

I don't think you're seeing the whole picture, because your attention is on the unbelieving Jews and their tribulation in 70 A.D.

Not entirely, but when it comes to the verses in question, that is the context I see.

So I told you why (I did give the reason why) IMO the disciples being told to flee Judea when they see the AOD has nothing to do with the Jews, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

All three synoptic gospel accounts mention what Jesus said about the destruction at the beginning, but only Luke mentions Jerusalem and the great distress of its people when the armies gather around Jerusalem and attack it, and it's only a small part of his record of the Olivet Discourse (Luke 21:20-24).

I believe the reason that Luke worded it the way he did is because he was writing to a Gentile audience who would not have been familiar with the prophecy from Daniel like the readers of Matthew and Mark. So, for him to tell his audience "let the reader understand" in relation to the prophecy in Daniel would not have made any sense.

The rest of his record is about the persecution of the saints and their redemption. Read it again (I know you've read it many times but check how much Luke is saying about the persecution of the saints and their redemption and compare it with how much he said about the destruction of Jerusalem).

Matthew and Mark only speak about what Jesus said about the temple and the disciples' question at the beginning, but then mention nothing more about the unbelieving Jews of Jerusalem after that. They speak about the persecution and tribulation of the saints only, in the day they become hated of all nations for Jesus' name's sake. The AOD is mentioned in this context.

But, what about the talk of believers having to flee to the mountains and how there would be woe to nursing mothers and pregnant women? I see the reason for that as being explained more directly in Luke 21:20-24.

But my wording in my previous reply to you could have been a lot better. It's OK if you throw it that wording into your trash can.

Okay, I will. No worries.

 

[Zao is life]

And what is that? Please be concise with your answer if you can. I don't feel like wading through a long answer to a simple question.

Because the AOD mentioned in Matthew 24:15 is the AOD that is mentioned in Daniel 11:36-37, 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4; Daniel 12:11 (which is a repeat of Daniel 8:11 and Daniel 11:31); and it corresponds to [Daniel 12:7 & Revelation 10:5-7] (bracketed because those two passages belong together). @Spiritual Jew The AOD of Antiochus is the type of the AOD mentioned in Matthew 24:15 and this is 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4.

It has nothing to do with the (Jerusalem) temple and city. Matthew stopped talking about that after Matthew 24:3, and then went on to talk about the tribulation of the elect from Matthew 24:9 all the way through to Matthew 24:31, and introducing it with the birth-pains.

Mark stopped talking about that after Mark 13:4, for the same reason.

Luke spoke about destruction of temple in Luke 21:5-7 and then only spoke about destruction of city and temple again in Luke 21:20-24. The rest of the verses he's writing about the persecution of the elect and their redemption.

Most of the Olivet Discourse is talking about the tribulation of the disciples ( @Spiritual Jew not of the unbelieving Jewsin 70 a.d), and it's in this context that the AOD is mentioned and they are told to flee Judea when they "see" it.

 

[Hammster]

We're not allowed to say anything more in a post after asking a question? You like to mostly just do one liner posts, but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to be like that. It's possible to ask more than one question and make more than one point within the same post. And it's possible to answer more than one question and reply to more than one point in a post as well.

You can say what you want. But I answered the question because I thought this was a discussion.

 

[Hammster]

You are free to respond to that particular post or not. I don't really care either way. I didn't ask any questions there that I expect you to answer, so it's up to you if you want to say something in response to what I said in that post or not.

Okay.

 

[parousia70]

I understand what you're saying, though. If it was true that this generation would pass away within 40 years of the time He was speaking, then He could say no one knew the day or hour even if they knew it would happen within 40 years.

Absolutely correct. Not knowing the day or hour is in no way evidentiary of Him not knowing which generation he was speaking about.

But, again, we know that when He said "you" this and "you" that, He was not only talking to and about those living at the time, but was talking to "everyone" who would ever hear or read His words before His coming at the end of the age and this generation (and heaven and earth) passed away.

Mark 13:37 What I say to you, I say to everyone: ‘Watch!’”.

But your position mandates that everyone who's lived and died up to now, including those living at the time, whom Jesus was directly addressing, must in fact be EXCLUDED from ANY application of the passage.

Your position mandates He couldn't have been talking to "everyone who would hear or read His words", as your position mandates they are only and ever applicable to the "one generation" at the end.

 

[Timtofly]

What exactly isn’t in scripture?

Coming in clouds in 70AD. Scripture was still being written. It was still being scribed and handed out. Thousands of manuscripts all over the Roman Empire. Yet not a single notation of such an event in Scripture.