Two aspects of the coming of Christ recorded in Matthew 24.

[Zao is life]

I hope I'm wrong, but it looks like you are saying "that those whom Jesus has made kings and priests...are the same kings of the earth who will commit fornication with Babylon the Great"? Is that right, or am I misunderstanding what you said here? If I'm understanding you correctly, then please explain what you mean because it doesn't make any sense. The kings of the earth who commit fornication with Babylon the Great are His enemies, not His priests.

And one of the seven angels who had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues came to me and talked with me, saying, Come here, I will show you the bride, the Lamb's wife. (Revelation 21:9)

And one of the seven angels who had the seven vials came and talked with me, saying to me, Come here, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot sitting on many waters. (Revelation 17:1).

New Jerusalem is a city of gold, precious stones and pearls (Revelation 21:10-11 & 18-21).

The harlot is "..gilded with gold, precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her FORNICATION" (Revelation 17:4).

There is a faithful city inhabited by the kings of the earth whom Jesus rules over. It's called New Jerusalem. There is an unfaithful city - a harlot - who rules over the kings of the earth who commit fornication with her. It's called Babylon the Great.

Babylon the Great, the kings of the earth who commit fornication with her, and Jezebel & her followers (message delivered to the church in Thyatira) are the only entities indicted for fornication in the Revelation.

Jesus rules over the faithful kings of the earth, and their city is New Jerusalem. Revelation 1:5-6
Babylon the Great is the city which rules over the unfaithful kings of the earth Revelation 17:18. She is sat on may waters which are "peoples, multitudes, nations and tongues".
The unfaithful kings of the earth committed fornication with Babylon the Great Revelation 17:2; 18:3 & 9.
The unfaithful kings of the earth wept and wailed over her demise when the ten kings who will rule with the beast for one hour render her desolate and naked, eat her flesh and burn her with fire in one hour.

"Because you say, I am rich and increased with goods and have need of nothing, and do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked, I counsel you to buy from Me gold tried in the fire, so that you may be rich; and white clothing, so that you may be clothed, and so that the shame of your nakedness does not appear. And anoint your eyes with eye salve, so that you may see. Revelation 3:17-18

(The above is the seventh of the seven messages to the seven churches). Below is the first time Jesus Himself is quoted as speaking directly again in the Revelation to His people after the seventh message to the seven churches:

"Behold, I am coming as a thief. Blessed is the one who watches and keeps his garments, lest he walk naked and they see his shame." Revelation 16:15.

When the harlot had been destroyed, the kings of the earth who committed fornication with the harlot, along with the rest of unbelieving humanity, "hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains. And they said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him sitting on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb; for the great day of His wrath has come, and who will be able to stand?" Revelation 6:15-17.

6 And I saw another angel flying in mid-heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those dwelling on the earth, even to every nation and kindred and tongue and people,
7 saying with a great voice, Fear God and give glory to Him! For the hour of His judgment has come. And worship Him who made the heaven and the earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.
8 And another angel followed, saying, The great city, Babylon, has fallen, has fallen; because of the wine of the anger of her fornication; she has made all nations to drink.
9 And a third angel followed them, saying with a great voice, If anyone worships the beast and its image, and receives a mark in his forehead or in his hand,
10 he also will drink of the wine of the anger of God, having been mixed undiluted in the cup of His wrath. And he will be tormented by fire and brimstone before the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb. Revelation 14.

There's a separation of the faithful and the unfaithful kings of the earth coming. The apostasy. Ever heard of Judas Iscariot, the son of perdition? Ever heard of the man of sin, the son of perdition? Satan entered into him.

He was known to be a disciple. Only Jesus knew all along Judas was going to betray Him. The rest knew nothing until the last supper, the night Jesus was betrayed. Until then, the son of perdition had been "one of us" to those who knew him. A leader, one of the chosen, one of the twelve.

The false prophet that ministers unto the beast rises from the earth, not the sea, and it has two horns like a lamb, but it speaks like a dragon. All of Western Christianity + Eastern Orthodox Christianity unified into one beast with two horns. No other explanation can be given for the two horns like a lamb. The Great Schism will end. But it's not God's work.

The man of sin, the son of perdition, the antitype of both Judas Iscariot and Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the follower of Christ who no one suspected, will betray HIs Lord and his brethren (Matthew 24:10), and become that leader, that 8th king. The ten kings will reign with him for one hour. Many among God's elect - most - will apostatize. Like most of the Jews did in the days of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

The harlot will be destroyed in one hour. Jesus called it "the hour of trial". The ten kings will reign with the beast, i.e the "8th" king who is one of the seven, for one hour. The beast will be given authority to continue for 42 months.

It's not two hours (42 months + 42 months or seven years) but one hour (42 months).

It's also not one city inhabited by the kings of the earth with Christ ruling over them - it's two cities, one the bride of Christ, the other a harlot, a city that rules over the kings of the earth who will commit fornication with her.

@Spiritual Jew Isaiah 24 is the biblical precedent - the type:

Isiah 24
1 Behold, the LORD empties the land and makes it bare, and distorts its face, and scatters its inhabitants.
2 And as it is with the people, so it shall be with the priest; as with the servant, so with the master; as with the handmaid, so it is with her mistress; as with the buyer, so with the seller; as with the lender, so with the borrower; as with the creditor, so with the debtor.
3 The land shall be completely emptied, and utterly stripped; for the LORD has spoken this word.
4 The earth mourns and languishes; the world droops and languishes; the proud people of the earth droop.
5 And the land is defiled under its people; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, and have broken the everlasting covenant.
6 Therefore the curse has devoured the earth, and they who dwell in it are deserted; therefore the people of the earth are burned, and few men left.
7 The new wine mourns, the vine droops, all the merry-hearted sigh.
8 The gladness of tambourines ceases, the noise of those who rejoice ends; the joy of the harp ceases.
20 Like a drunkard the earth is staggering, staggering! And it rocks to and fro like a tree-hut! And its sins heavy on it; and it shall fall and not rise again.
21 And it shall be in that day, the LORD shall punish the host of the high place on high, and on the kings of the earth on the earth.

 

[Zao is life]

Give me a break. Get serious. I explained why I do and you are saying NOTHING in response to what I said.

Luke 21:23 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.

What causes "great distress"? Is it not "great tribulation"? Of course. If you go through a time of trouble do you not get distressed over it? At least sometimes? Sure you do because you're human. So, this verse is talking about a time of great tribulation and distress that was caused by God's wrath.

Also, Luke 21:20-24a is a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-22. And it is called great tribulation in the Matthew 24 passage. Therefore, Luke 21:23 is indeed talking about great tribulation and distress that was caused by God's wrath. So, THAT is how I can conflate wrath with tribulation. By actually looking at the scripture carefully and accepting what it teaches.

So, don't compare me to pre-tribbers and all that nonsense. What a joke. Do you want to be taken seriously or not? If you do, then don't just brush aside my valid arguments. All that tells me is that you are closed-minded and are willing to ignore things so that you see what you want to see.

Tribulation is simply referring to trouble and suffering. It's not just Satan and the wicked who cause tribulation. God can cause tribulation as well. Maybe this is one way in which pre-tribbers have a better understanding of something than you.

Matthew 24:10 and 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 both speak about a falling away / apostasy.
Matthew 24:12 and 2 Thessalonians 2 both speak about lawlessness (the Greek word used is: anomia: lawlessness).
Matthew 24:14-31 and 2 Thessalonians 2 both speak about the time of the end and the coming of Christ.
Matthew 24:15 and 2 Thessalonians 2:4 both speak about something evil appearing in the holy place - the sanctuary of God.

The great tribulation spoken of in Matthew 24:9-22 is not coming upon anyone as a result of God's wrath. And the AoD in Matthew 24:15 has nothing to do with the temple in Jerusalem but with the man of sin, the antitype of Antiochus IV Epiphanes defiling God's sanctuary.

You are conflating tribulation with wrath. In your post above you have just done so again.

There is only one holy sanctuary of God. The building that still stood in A.D 70 was as much the holy place as Dolly Parton is Putin's wife. Even far less of a possibility. In Matthew 23:38 Jesus called it "Your (the Jews') house". Not God's house.

Pretribbers and Preterists also conflate these verses talking about the tribulation of the saints in Matthew 24:9-22 with the wrath of God mentioned in Luke 21:23, albeit for different reasons. It shouldn't trigger you to have that in common with them. We both have something in common with Preterists - the knowledge that Daniel 9:26-27 was fulfilled in the 1st century A.D. So why be so triggered when it's pointed out to you that you have your conflating of the tribulation of the saints, mentioned in Matthew 24:9-22, with God's wrath that came upon Jerusalem in 70 A.D, in common with Preterists, and your conflating of the tribulation of saints with wrath in common with Pre-Tribulationists?

 

[JulieB67]

So, where do you believe He answered that question? I believe He answered it in Matthew 24:15-22 (also recorded in Mark 13:14-20 and Luke 21:20-24a).

I don't believe every stone was turned down, I believe the wailing wall still stands.

I am not doing that. Please do not misrepresent my beliefs like this. That is unacceptable.

My apologies I'm not trying to offend but I have to ask then, as you believe, because you are separating the tribulations -do you believe these verses are about 70 AD?

Matthew 24:21 "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be."

Matthew 24:22 "And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

If so, you believe this will be the greatest tribulation since the beginning of time and until the end? I mean if that's the case, we're talking the world that was destroyed before, Noah's flood, the end time tribulation and so on. That's what I don't understand.

Why is it that you can't allow for the possibility that Jesus talked BOTH about things that happened in 70 AD and about things that would happen after that up to His future coming at the end of the age?

Because again, Christ ties the two tribulations together.

Matthew 24:21 "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be."

Matthew 24:22 "And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened."

He's stating that to tell us the time has been shortened. But I don't see that the subject has stopped. He continues..

Matthew 24:23 "Then if any man shall say unto you, 'Lo, here is Christ,' or 'there,' believe it not."

It talks about Jerusalem being surrounded by armies.

I don't believe these to be human armies. It states when you see this happen, the desolation is near. And we saw in Matthew 24 when you see the AOD "stand" where it ought not.....Satan and his angels will be kicked out. This starts the tribulation of those days.

So, Luke 21:20-24a does not have a global context.

It does in this verse -

Luke 21:22 "For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled."

All things that are written have not been fulfilled.

f Matthew 24:15-22 is all spiritual, then what would being in Judea and fleeing to the mountains mean spiritually? You did not answer this question in this post.

What would saying woe to nursing mothers mean spiritually? You did not answer this question in this post.

What would it mean spiritually when Jesus said to pray that their flight would not be in winter or on the Sabbath? You did not answer this question in this post.

Because Jerusalem will be headquaters for Satan and his angels. When you see this happen, you don't want to have any part of that city. You need to get out. God's wrath is going to completely wipe all of this out. And those who are part of the end time Babylon will suffer the wrath as well. We are to come out of her. We know Babylon represents confusion and that's what's going to happen to most of the world at that time.

Spiritually speaking we are to remain virgins, not harvested in winter and we are to not having any part of the end time Jerusalem when the AOD stands where it ought not.

 

[Jamdoc]

I don't believe every stone was turned down, I believe the wailing wall still stands.


My apologies I'm not trying to offend but I have to ask then, as you believe, because you are separating the tribulations -do you believe these verses are about 70 AD?

Matthew 24:21 "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be."

Matthew 24:22 "And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

If so, you believe this will be the greatest tribulation since the beginning of time and until the end? I mean if that's the case, we're talking the world that was destroyed before, Noah's flood, the end time tribulation and so on. That's what I don't understand.

Because again, Christ ties the two tribulations together.

Matthew 24:21 "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be."

Matthew 24:22 "And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened."

He's stating that to tell us the time has been shortened. But I don't see that the subject has stopped. He continues..

Matthew 24:23 "Then if any man shall say unto you, 'Lo, here is Christ,' or 'there,' believe it not."



I don't believe these to be human armies. It states when you see this happen, the desolation is near. And we saw in Matthew 24 when you see the AOD "stand" where it ought not.....Satan and his angels will be kicked out. This starts the tribulation of those days.

It does in this verse -

Luke 21:22 "For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled."

All things that are written have not been fulfilled.


Because Jerusalem will be headquaters for Satan and his angels. When you see this happen, you don't want to have any part of that city. You need to get out. God's wrath is going to completely wipe all of this out. And those who are part of the end time Babylon will suffer the wrath as well. We are to come out of her. We know Babylon represents confusion and that's what's going to happen to most of the world at that time.

Spiritually speaking we are to remain virgins, not harvested in winter and we are to not having any part of the end time Jerusalem when the AOD stands where it ought not.

It can be human armies but it doesn't have to be Roman armies. It's Antichrist's armies.

Daniel 11 has Jerusalem get invaded (and no this is not antiochus epiphanes, Jesus referred to it as a future event)

21 And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.
22 And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant.
23 And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people.

So, Antichrist, 3rd in succession after the King of the North
I'm taking this as the covenant with death from Isaiah 28 and the covenant with the many of Daniel 9

24 He shall enter peaceably even upon the fattest places of the province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers' fathers; he shall scatter among them the prey, and spoil, and riches: yea, and he shall forecast his devices against the strong holds, even for a time.
25 And he shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the south with a great army; and the king of the south shall be stirred up to battle with a very great and mighty army; but he shall not stand: for they shall forecast devices against him.
26 Yea, they that feed of the portion of his meat shall destroy him, and his army shall overflow: and many shall fall down slain.
27 And both of these kings' hearts shall be to do mischief, and they shall speak lies at one table; but it shall not prosper: for yet the end shall be at the time appointed.
28 Then shall he return into his land with great riches; and his heart shall be against the holy covenant; and he shall do exploits, and return to his own land.
29 At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south; but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter.
30 For the ships of Chittim shall come against him: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.

He comes in peace at first, but comes back to conquer Israel later.

31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

The arms standing on his part is an army. Other translations make it more clear that it is Antichrist's army that ends the daily sacrifices and desecrates the temple.

 

[JulieB67]

Other translations make it more clear that it is Antichrist's army that ends the daily sacrifices and desecrates the temple.

I definitely believe this.

 

[Jamdoc]

I definitely believe this.

Yeah so I do believe that Jerusalem will be surrounded by armies and that Antichrist will take it by force.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Was Paul overcome? If you think so, can you supply the verse that supports this?

Physically, as in being killed? How would I know something like that? I think he probably died of natural causes since it seems that he was close to death when he was writing the last of his letters. Why did you ask me that question?

In Deuteronomy 33:1-3 Moses blessed the children of Israel and referred to them collectively as saints. Unless you think every single one of the children of Israel were believers at that point, unbelieving Jews were considered saints along with the believers here.

Are we talking about something in the Old Testament or New Testament here? New Testament, right? Who are the ones called saints in the New Testament? Only Christians. Do you expect me to believe that Revelation was referring to people like the Pharisees and scribes as saints? No chance.

 

[Jamdoc]

Physically, as in being killed? How would I know something like that? I think he probably died of natural causes since it seems that he was close to death when he was writing the last of his letters. Why did you ask me that question?


Are we talking about something in the Old Testament or New Testament here? New Testament, right? Who are the ones called saints in the New Testament? Only Christians. Do you expect me to believe that Revelation was referring to people like the Pharisees and scribes as saints? No chance.

Pharisees and scribes were never saints. Salvation has always been connected to Messiah through faith, Romans 4 and Hebrews 11 demonstrated this.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

And one of the seven angels who had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues came to me and talked with me, saying, Come here, I will show you the bride, the Lamb's wife. (Revelation 21:9)

And one of the seven angels who had the seven vials came and talked with me, saying to me, Come here, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot sitting on many waters. (Revelation 17:1).

New Jerusalem is a city of gold, precious stones and pearls (Revelation 21:10-11 & 18-21).

The harlot is "..gilded with gold, precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her FORNICATION" (Revelation 17:4).

There is a faithful city inhabited by the kings of the earth whom Jesus rules over. It's called New Jerusalem. There is an unfaithful city - a harlot - who rules over the kings of the earth who commit fornication with her. It's called Babylon the Great.

Babylon the Great, the kings of the earth who commit fornication with her, and Jezebel & her followers (message delivered to the church in Thyatira) are the only entities indicted for fornication in the Revelation.

Jesus rules over the faithful kings of the earth, and their city is New Jerusalem. Revelation 1:5-6
Babylon the Great is the city which rules over the unfaithful kings of the earth Revelation 17:18. She is sat on may waters which are "peoples, multitudes, nations and tongues".

Nowhere does the scripture itself differentiate between faithful and unfaithful kings of the earth like you're doing. Jesus rules over ALL kings of the earth whether faithful or unfaithful.

Matthew 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

All authority means just that. Jesus has authority and rules over all people and all things in heaven and on earth, so that includes ALL of the kings of the earth. If they don't acknowledge Him that doesn't mean He doesn't rule over them. He certainly does. Him being King of kings and Lord of lords is not dependent on the obedience of all kings and lords. He IS King of king and Lord of lords regardless. The unfaithful kings of the earth will pay a price one day for not acknowledging His rule over them.

Ephesians 1:19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength 20 he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21 far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

Paul indicated here that Jesus reigns at the Father's right hand "far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked". Far above all rule. That would include the rule of all kings of the earth. And far above "every name that is invoked". That would include every name of all of the kings of the earth. Nowhere does scripture indicate that His status as the ruler of the earth is dependent on whether people are obeying Him or not. That's like saying the governer of a state is not the governor of those who break the state laws that he governs over and helps enforce. Yes, he (or she) is.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Pharisees and scribes were never saints.

Of course they weren't. You didn't think I was saying they ever were, did you?

Salvation has always been connected to Messiah through faith, Romans 4 and Hebrews 11 demonstrated this.

Of course. But, the person I was talking to apparently doesn't understand this.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Matthew 24:10 and 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 both speak about a falling away / apostasy.

Agree. And both are speaking of the same falling away. You may not be aware of how I interpret Matthew 24. I believe Jesus was asked two questions. One relating to the destruction of the temple buildings. It's not surprising at all that the disciples would ask Him about that after He told them that. But, He was also asked about His coming and the end of the age. I see that as one question since His coming will occur at the end of the age.

Another thing I believe is that prophecy is not always in chronological order. So, what I believe is that Jesus started answering the question about His coming and the end of the age up to verse 14. Then I believe He shifted to talking about things related to the question about the destruction of the temple buildings. Then after verse 22 I believe He went back to talking about things related to His coming and the end of the age.

Matthew 24:12 and 2 Thessalonians 2 both speak about lawlessness (the Greek word used is: anomia: lawlessness).

Yep.

Matthew 24:14-31 and 2 Thessalonians 2 both speak about the time of the end and the coming of Christ.

And here is where we disagree. The things related to the coming of Christ have a global context. That is not what is described in Matthew 24:15-22. What is described there has a local or regional context which is why Jesus only said that those in Judea would need to flee and not anyone living anywhere else.

Matthew 24:15 and 2 Thessalonians 2:4 both speak about something evil appearing in the holy place - the sanctuary of God.

The difference is, at the time Jesus was speaking, the temple standing at that time was still considered the holy place, so He could refer to the temple at that time and still call it the holy place. At the time Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians 2:4 the temple was no longer the holy place. The church was the temple of God that Paul referred to several times in his writings. So, the two passages do not have the same context.

The great tribulation spoken of in Matthew 24:9-22 is not coming upon anyone as a result of God's wrath.

Yes, it most certainly is (well, verses 15-22, anyway) and you would see that if only you would acknowledge that Luke 21:20-24a is a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-22. Jesus did NOT say "let those in Judea flee to the mountains" on two separate occasions in the Olivet Discourse as you believe (unless you don't acknowledge that Luke 21 is an account of the Olivet Discourse?).

You are conflating tribulation with wrath.

For good reason, as I've already explained. Again, if only you would acknowledge that Luke 21:20-24a is a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-22 then you would see that Jesus spoke of "great tribulation" and "great distress" occurring in Jerusalem as a result of God's wrath.

In your post above you have just done so again.

And I will continue doing so since that is what Jesus did.

There is only one holy sanctuary of God. The building that still stood in A.D 70 was as much the holy place as Dolly Parton is Putin's wife. Even far less of a possibility. In Matthew 23:38 Jesus called it "Your (the Jews') house". Not God's house.

You do understand that I don't believe that the temple standing back then was still the holy place in 70 AD, don't you? I've only said as such probably at least 100 times on this forum before. By calling it the holy place at the time He was speaking, it didn't mean it still had to be considered the holy place when what He prophesied would happen that occurred. He called it what it was known by at the time He was speaking, which was perfectly reasonable because His immediate audience would have known what place He was talking about. That it would not still be considered the holy place in the future when the prophecy was fulfilled is irrelevant.

Pretribbers and Preterists also conflate these verses talking about the tribulation of the saints in Matthew 24:9-22 with the wrath of God mentioned in Luke 21:23, albeit for different reasons.

I could not care less about that. It's a complete waste of your time to say that to me. A broken clock is right twice a day. So, even pretribbers and preterists are right about a few things even though they are wrong about most things.

It shouldn't trigger you to have that in common with them.

It doesn't. I didn't say it did, either. So, why did you say this?

We both have something in common with Preterists - the knowledge that Daniel 9:26-27 was fulfilled in the 1st century A.D.

Yep.

So why be so triggered when it's pointed out to you that you have your conflating of the tribulation of the saints, mentioned in Matthew 24:9-22, with God's wrath that came upon Jerusalem in 70 A.D, in common with Preterists, and your conflating of the tribulation of saints with wrath in common with Pre-Tribulationists?

I'm not triggered about agreeing with them on something whatsoever. But, you were saying that I was thinking like them in a condescending way as if I didn't consider that I was agreeing with people who are wrong about everything. That is what triggered me. That is how it came across, at least. If that isn't the case, then what was your point in saying that they interpret it the same way I do in terms of conflating the tribulation with God's wrath? Who cares if that's the case? What difference does it make? It seems that the only reason you would have done that was as an insult.

 

[grafted branch]

Physically, as in being killed? How would I know something like that? I think he probably died of natural causes since it seems that he was close to death when he was writing the last of his letters. Why did you ask me that question?

I asked the question because the two witnesses are both overcome and killed, these are two separate and distinctly different words and they both happen to the two witnesses.

You seem to think it’s a very common thing for believers to be overcome so I’m just wondering where in the scriptures you see examples of believers being overcome (besides in Revelation).

Are we talking about something in the Old Testament or New Testament here? New Testament, right?

No, I believe the two witnesses are referring to a time prior to the cross.

I see lots of references to the Old Testament in Revelation. I guess it’s your prerogative to reject the Old Testament definition of saints if you want.

 

[anetazo]

Matthew chapter 24:40. .two working in the field. One taken, one stays. Those who listen to rapture theory will worship antichrist near future. The rapture theory is false doctrine, Ezekiel chapter 13 to document.
Those not willing to make stand for Jesus. Will have spot in sheol.
Luke chapter 13:23 to 13:30. Jesus says strive to enter the strait gate. Many wont make it. Those who worshipped antichrist will go through wide gate to sheol. False doctrine will get many Christian people trip to sheol. They won't study sound doctrine.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I asked the question because the two witnesses are both overcome and killed, these are two separate and distinctly different words and they both happen to the two witnesses.

Different, but directly related words. They are physically killed because they are physically overcome. You're making this a lot more complicated than it is.

You seem to think it’s a very common thing for believers to be overcome so I’m just wondering where in the scriptures you see examples of believers being overcome (besides in Revelation).

If you're talking about that word being used in scripture, I woudn't say that's common. But, in Revelation it's clear to me that it's related to being physically overcome.

No, I believe the two witnesses are referring to a time prior to the cross.

That's clearly not the case. I wish I knew how you came to believe some of the things you do because I can't make any sense out of it.

I see lots of references to the Old Testament in Revelation. I guess it’s your prerogative to reject the Old Testament definition of saints if you want.

You guess? It's ludicrous to act as if Revelation is just another Old Testament book. We're talking about a New Testament book here, not Old Testament. It talks about things related to the New Testament which is apparently obvious to everyone except you. Just because it may use terms, like Babylon, that refer to Old Testament things, doesn't mean it's talking about Old Testament times. It uses Old Testament places and things to symbolize New Testament places and things.

 

[Zao is life]

Nowhere does the scripture itself differentiate between faithful and unfaithful kings of the earth like you're doing. Jesus rules over ALL kings of the earth whether faithful or unfaithful.

22 Many will say to Me in that day, Lord! Lord! Did we not prophesy in Your name, and through Your name throw out demons, and through Your name do many wonderful works?
23 And then I will say to them I never knew you! Depart from Me, those working lawlessness! Matthew 7:22-23

Jesus Himself differentiates between the faithful and unfaithful kings of the earth. The fact that the Revelation is talking about the kings of the earth who fornicate with the harlot has nothing to do with the fact that His status as the ruler of the earth is not dependent on whether people are obeying Him or not. Jesus does not forcefully rule over those who believe in Him but do not willingly submit to His will:

"For whoever shall do the will of My Father in Heaven, the same is My brother and sister and mother." Matthew 12:50.

Jesus does not rule by force. He does not take away the freedom to choose, not even from the kings of the earth.

The fact that the Revelation is talking about the kings of the earth who fornicate with the harlot and making a comparison between the faithful city and the unfaithful city has nothing to do with the fact that His status as the ruler of the earth is not dependent on whether people are obeying Him or not. That's a false assumption that you have made.

1 And one of the seven angels who had the seven vials came and talked with me, saying to me, Come here, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot sitting on many waters,
2 with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, and became drunk with the wine of her fornication, those inhabiting the earth.
18 And the woman whom you saw is the great city which has a kingdom over the kings of the earth.

In other words, the unfaithful city, as opposed to New Jerusalem, the faithful city. Both are comprised of the kings of the earth.

22 Many will say to Me in that day, Lord! Lord! Did we not prophesy in Your name, and through Your name throw out demons, and through Your name do many wonderful works?
23 And then I will say to them I never knew you! Depart from Me, those working lawlessness!

 

[Zao is life]

So, what I believe is that Jesus started answering the question about His coming and the end of the age up to verse 14. Then I believe He shifted to talking about things related to the question about the destruction of the temple buildings. Then after verse 22 I believe He went back to talking about things related to His coming and the end of the age.

They asked Him when these things (the destruction of the temple) would be AND (Greek: kai) what the sign would be of His coming and of the end of the Age.

1. There is no evidence in Acts or in any of the epistles that they knew when the temple was going to be destroyed - and all the epistles were written before A.D 70.

2. Luke's gospel records Jesus' answer in accordance with Luke's record of the disciples' question. Matthew's gospel records Jesus' answer in accordance with Matthew's record of the disciples' question.

In Luke's gospel, whereas Luke uses the word wrath to talk about the wrath of God that was to come upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem (Luke 21:23), the persecution / tribulation of the disciples of Jesus in the days leading up to the coming of the Son of man is spoken about in Luke 21:12-19 & 27-28. The tribulation of the disciples of Jesus is also spoken about in Matthew 24:9-14; and Mark 13:9 & 11-13.

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. It's the second time the appearance of false prophets is mentioned. The first time is in Matthew 24:11 - before the mention of the AoD and great tribulation, which mentions the elect in verse 22. Matthew 24:9-10 are also talking about the elect.

The record of the disciples' question in Mark's gospel is the same as Luke's record, and Mark is a combination of Matthew's and Luke's record of the Lord's reply. Like the others, Mark opens with talking about the persecution / tribulation of the disciples of Jesus, then mentions the AoD and fleeing Jerusalem, then goes back to talking about the period of great tribulation that will lead to Jesus; return.

Luke's record is the only record that specifically mentions the sign that the temple was about to be destroyed - the gathering of the armies against Jerusalem (Luke 21:20-24), calling it the wrath of God coming upon the people in Luke 21:23 - and it's in accordance with the disciples' question as recorded by Luke.

3. We can only place the AoD and the instruction to flee Judea in the first century only by imagining that the grammar in Matthew points to Jesus' mention of the disciples suffering persecution / tribulation in the 1st century when the temple was destroyed, only:

8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.
9 Then (tote: at that time: the time of the end) they will deliver you up to tribulation (thlipsis) and will kill you. And you will be hated of all nations for My name's sake.
10 And then (tote: at that time: the time of the end) many will be offended, and will betray one another, and will hate one another.
11 And many false prophets will rise and deceive many.
12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many will become cold.
13 But he who endures to the end, the same shall be kept safe.
14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be proclaimed in all the world as a witness to all nations. And then (tote: at that time: the time of the end) the end shall come.
15 Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoever reads, let him understand).
16 Then (tote: at that time: the time of the end) let those in Judea flee into the mountains.

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

The rest that is said beyond this point is still speaking about the same subject - unless we flatly ignore the grammar, and pretend that we can adjust the "when" of the time being spoken about by ignoring the grammar and cutting one part out, like you have made it clear you do with this passage.

Matthew's record from verse 9 onward is either all talking about the 1st century or it is all talking about the return of Christ and the time of the end of the Age. We cannot decide what the grammar "should be" instead of leaving the grammar as it is.

The obvious question that the above fact regarding the grammar poses regarding whether the instruction of flee Judea was meant only for 69-70 A.D, or for the time of the end of the Age and return of Christ, or is meant spiritually, does not change the fact that we cannot ignore the grammar. Ignoring the grammar makes nonsense of anything else we claim. Breaking the passage up like that just because of what is said about fleeing Judea is just bad hermeneutic IMO.

The reason that according to Matthew and Mark's record they were told to flee Judea when they see the AoD does not mean that the passage can be broken up despite the grammar, nor does it mean that the AoD in the holy place is going back to speaking about the temple in Jerusalem.

Jerusalem is going to be surrounded and attacked by the armies of all nations according to Zechariah chapters 12 through 14, in a day that the Messiah will go out and fight against them after "setting His feet on the Mount of Olives" (His "feet" does not necessarily mean Jesus Himself will set foot on the Mount of Olives - but it can also mean that, judging by what the disciples were told in Acts 1:11).

The point is, Jesus did not fight against the Roman armies in 70 A.D - meaning that the prophecy has not yet been fulfilled.

The instruction to flee Judea is also just like the instruction for the saints to come out of Babylon the Great.

The point is: The fact that accepting what the grammar of Matthew 24:9-31 points to, leads to speculating about why the disciples should have been told to flee Judea, should not cause us to start slicing up a a passage in which the grammar requires us not to slice up.

Also, the fact that there is no evidence in the epistles or in the book of Acts that the disciples knew when the temple would be destroyed, should cause us not to assume that the AoD in the holy place is referring to the made-with-human-hands temple building in Jerusalem - especially because we know that Antiochus IV's defiling of the sanctuary of God with a statue of Zeus and identifying himself with Zeus, is a type of the man of sin who will go even further and exalt himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped and seat himself in the tabernacle of God, claiming to be God.

To be honest I think it's dangerous to assume that the AoD of Matthew 24:15 is talking about a made-with-human-hands building in Jerusalem. Makes people unsuspecting.​

I'm not triggered about agreeing with them on something whatsoever.

Good.

A broken clock is right twice a day.

Let's leave it at that. I like that saying. Hope I remember it.

 

[Zao is life]

The difference is, at the time Jesus was speaking, the temple standing at that time was still considered the holy place, so He could refer to the temple at that time and still call it the holy place. At the time Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians 2:4 the temple was no longer the holy place. The church was the temple of God that Paul referred to several times in his writings. So, the two passages do not have the same context.

When Jesus turned over the money-changers' tables in the temple, He called it "the house of the LORD" because it was still the house of the LORD. It ceased being the house of the LORD the moment the veil was torn, which occurred the moment Jesus died.

But when Jesus told the Pharisees it was going to be destroyed, though it was still the house of the LORD when He spoke those words, He called it your (the Jews') house, knowing that by the time it would be destroyed, it would no longer have been the house of the LORD for the 40 years since His death. So why would He have referred to it as the holy place later on the same day?

 

[grafted branch]

Different, but directly related words. They are physically killed because they are physically overcome. You're making this a lot more complicated than it is.

I’ve seen you post multiple times about Satan being a spiritual being and he’s not bound by a physical chain, he’s bound spiritually. If there are multiple examples of believers being overcome and killed, then what is the difference whether Satan is bound or not when it comes to the two witnesses and their being overcome and killed? Do you have a future spiritual being doing physical killing?

 

[Jamdoc]

Of course they weren't. You didn't think I was saying they ever were, did you?


Of course. But, the person I was talking to apparently doesn't understand this.

yeah sorry I block people who have that much preterism in their beliefs so I didn't read their stuff, you were talking about old testament vs new testament saints and I guess we'd both agree they became saints the same way just the old testament ones were looking forward to Messiah rather than backwards and knowing His name.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

22 Many will say to Me in that day, Lord! Lord! Did we not prophesy in Your name, and through Your name throw out demons, and through Your name do many wonderful works?
23 And then I will say to them I never knew you! Depart from Me, those working lawlessness! Matthew 7:22-23

Jesus Himself differentiates between the faithful and unfaithful kings of the earth.

When it comes to who He rules over, He does not. He rules over all people, as scripture explicitly says. Paul said He rules over every name that is named (Ephesians 1:19-23). That includes everyone.

The fact that the Revelation is talking about the kings of the earth who fornicate with the harlot has nothing to do with the fact that His status as the ruler of the earth is not dependent on whether people are obeying Him or not. Jesus does not forcefully rule over those who believe in Him but do not willingly submit to His will:

"For whoever shall do the will of My Father in Heaven, the same is My brother and sister and mother." Matthew 12:50.

Jesus does not rule by force. He does not take away the freedom to choose, not even from the kings of the earth.

Jesus rules over everyone whether they acknowledge it or not. Him ruling over people is not dependent on whether or not they are obeying Him. If someone disagrees with the policies enforced by a governer of a state (pick any state) and they break the law does that mean the governor doesn't govern and rule over that person? No, it doesn't mean that. He or she rules over all the people in the state whether they obey the state laws or not, right?

The fact that the Revelation is talking about the kings of the earth who fornicate with the harlot and making a comparison between the faithful city and the unfaithful city has nothing to do with the fact that His status as the ruler of the earth is not dependent on whether people are obeying Him or not. That's a false assumption that you have made.

False assumption? Does He rule over everyone as scripture says or not? I agree with scripture that He does. What do you think?