Slowly but surely....

[divaD]

I am beginning to think premil is illogical. Currently I have been seeing a possible connection between the following. I already know that very few, if any, are going to agree with me. I even doubt that very many non premils would agree.

Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

Revelation 20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

A cpl of key things could possibly connect these two. Such as...see Jerusalem compassed with armies..and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city. then know that the desolation thereof is nigh....and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

Something else interesting here is this...compassed. The Greek word is kuklow. That word is used in both verses...And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed(kuklow) with armies. and compassed(kuklow) the camp of the saints about.

Logically then, as per Revelation 20:9...And they went up on the breadth of the earth..this would denote armies. So in both verses we have armies, Jerusalem being surrounded, then desolation occurring in the end. And I've been saying this for the longest..Luke 21:20 is not meaning 70 Ad, but it's meaning in the final days before the return of Jesus. And the ironic thing about it, at least in my case, this conclusion can still work without having to be premil. I mean, if there is a connection here, premil can't be correct, because it places this after the 1000 years.

[TrustGzus]

Why do you think Luke 21:20 isn't a reference to 70AD? The natural flow of Luke 21 would seem to point to 70AD.

[divaD]

Why do you think Luke 21:20 isn't a reference to 70AD? The natural flow of Luke 21 would seem to point to 70AD.

For one thing...

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: )

Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.


If these two verses ae parallel, then one has yet to fill me in with what abomination caused this to occur back then.


I have other reasons as well. I think somewhere around here I made a thread about how Luke 17 seems to place the time of the abomination around the time of the 2nd coming, which explains some of my other reasons.

[TrustGzus]

For one thing...

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: )

Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.


If these two verses ae parallel, then one has yet to fill me in with what abomination caused this to occur back then.


I have other reasons as well. I think somewhere around here I made a thread about how Luke 17 seems to place the time of the abomination around the time of the 2nd coming, which explains some of my other reasons.

Taken in context, who was Jesus speaking to when he gave this discourse? How would they interpret the word ye? Who is ye? When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation . . . When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies . . .

If the plain sense makes common sense, then seek no other sense.

[divaD]

Taken in context, who was Jesus speaking to when he gave this discourse? How would they interpret the word ye? Who is ye? When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation . . . When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies . . .

If the plain sense makes common sense, then seek no other sense.

Some unrelated stuff...but only to try and make a point.


Matthew 24:6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.


Let's start with this one then. There's a 'ye' in this verse. Via your logic then, only the ones present are in mind here. The fact that those present are long gone now, no need for anyone else to be troubled when one hears of wars and rumours of wars. Speaking of that, how many wars and rumours of wars do you figure these particular disciples were troubled by before they died?

I can list more examples, so my point is, the fact you are concluding the 'ye' can only mean them at the time, then it makes one wonder why even read the gospel accounts at all, since none of it is applicable to us any more. such as...


Matthew 24:44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.


No need to worry about this passage today, since it has a 'ye' or two in there, which is only applicable to those that Jesus was speaking to at the time. I OTOH, I take 'ye' to mean whomever is reading. Not all the time 'ye' is used in the gospels is it going to be applicable in general, because sometimes it is an historical account, such as for example..

Matthew 26:10 When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me.

Clearly the 'ye' here is meaning those at the time who were troubling the woman.

But a lot of times, 'ye' should be understood in the sense of generally speaking, meaning whomever is reading and understands, etc.

[TrustGzus]

What you said is interesting, and I will be glad to share some thoughts. But you never answered my question.

How would that audience have taken this?

Often Christians take passages and interpret them only for 21st century readers. We weren't the original audience.

How would that audience have taken this? Or was Jesus bypassing them and not really addressing them?

Let's start with this one then. There's a 'ye' in this verse. Via your logic then, only the ones present are in mind here. The fact that those present are long gone now, no need for anyone else to be troubled when one hears of wars and rumours of wars. Speaking of that, how many wars and rumours of wars do you figure these particular disciples were troubled by before they died?


I can list more examples, so my point is, the fact you are concluding the 'ye' can only mean them at the time, then it makes one wonder why even read the gospel accounts at all, since none of it is applicable to us any more. such as...

How are you determining that the "ye" isn't them (or them alone) and a broader audience?

Matthew 24:44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.




No need to worry about this passage today, since it has a 'ye' or two in there, which is only applicable to those that Jesus was speaking to at the time. I OTOH, I take 'ye' to mean whomever is reading. Not all the time 'ye' is used in the gospels is it going to be applicable in general, because sometimes it is an historical account, such as for example..


Matthew 26:10 When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me.


Clearly the 'ye' here is meaning those at the time who were troubling the woman.


But a lot of times, 'ye' should be understood in the sense of generally speaking, meaning whomever is reading and understands, etc.

And here you make an important point, you don't take every "ye" and apply it to yourself. Yet when I imply that "ye" in Matthew 24 applied to who Jesus was talking to, you haven't given any reason why you take it one way in one passage and another way in another passage.

Explain.

[divaD]

Why do you think Luke 21:20 isn't a reference to 70AD? The natural flow of Luke 21 would seem to point to 70AD.

Here's something I stated in post #3 as one of the reasons.

For one thing...

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: )

Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.


If these two verses ae parallel, then one has yet to fill me in with what abomination caused this to occur back then.

One of your answers to that was the following.

If the plain sense makes common sense, then seek no other sense.

Instead of answering my point in that manner, why not just disclose what abomination caused the destruction of the temple and city in 70 AD? If you or anyone else can clearly Scripturally show what abomination caused the desolations in 70 AD, who knows, but perhaps then I might see it differently. To me it makes no sense to conclude that the abomination that causeth desolation, that this occurred in 70 AD, yet not having a clue as to what the abomination was.
How can there be an abomination that causeth desolation without there actually being an abomination?

[Diggindeeper]

DaviD, why not do a little study, not a lot...just a little to know what some of us are saying.

Try this, for starters:
The Abomination of Desolation: A Covenant Curse On Israel! | eschatology.org
http://www.eschatology.org/all-artic...urse-on-israel

[divaD]

DaviD, why not do a little study, not a lot...just a little to know what some of us are saying.

Try this, for starters:
The Abomination of Desolation: A Covenant Curse On Israel! | eschatology.org
http://www.eschatology.org/all-artic...urse-on-israel

Hi DD. I read that link. First of all, I don't see myself seeing this like the dispensationalists do in that article. I find much of their conclusions to border on unreasonable, such as a temple being built in Jerusalem, and the man of sin acting like God in it, etc. I'm sorta' thinking a lot of this is to be understood spiritually, and not so much literally, tho some of it may occur in the literal sense.

Here's something I noticed in the article you provided.....

"If the AoD is perpetrated by a pagan leader, in the Jewish temple at Jerusalem, it confirms the fact that Israel at that juncture is out of covenant relationship with YHVH and that Mosaic Covenant Wrath is being applied to Israel!"http://www.eschatology.org/all-articles-articles-211/116-topical-studies/827-the-abomination-of-desolation-a-covenant-curse-on-israel

To me this would be the same as arguing that when Christians are persecuted, etc, this means they are out of covenant relationship with YHVH. Just because one is being persecuted, etc, this doesn't always denote they are out of covenant relationship with YHVH, tho sometimes it can mean just that. But I wouldn't think all the time tho.

About the only thing in that article that made sense to me was the author's conclusions about the 144,000 being the firstfruits of that time, and not a time in a distant future. So I read thru the entire article then, but I don't see where the author ever proved what abomination caused the desolation in 70 AD? Maybe the author did, but his point went over my head or something. That's not unusual for me.

[Raybob]

I am beginning to think premil is illogical. Currently I have been seeing a possible connection between the following. I already know that very few, if any, are going to agree with me. I even doubt that very many non premils would agree.

Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

Revelation 20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

A cpl of key things could possibly connect these two. Such as...see Jerusalem compassed with armies..and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city. then know that the desolation thereof is nigh....and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them...

There is a BIG difference between desolation and fire that devours. Surely, you've heard of the abomination that causes desolation. Do you think that abomination is causing fire from heaven, or desolation?

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.
(Dan 11:31)



I think you have a compass fetish. The only thing that could connect those two verses is a compass.

[Walls]

I am beginning to think premil is illogical. Currently I have been seeing a possible connection between the following. I already know that very few, if any, are going to agree with me. I even doubt that very many non premils would agree.

Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

Revelation 20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

A cpl of key things could possibly connect these two. Such as...see Jerusalem compassed with armies..and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city. then know that the desolation thereof is nigh....and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

Something else interesting here is this...compassed. The Greek word is kuklow. That word is used in both verses...And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed(kuklow) with armies. and compassed(kuklow) the camp of the saints about.

Logically then, as per Revelation 20:9...And they went up on the breadth of the earth..this would denote armies. So in both verses we have armies, Jerusalem being surrounded, then desolation occurring in the end. And I've been saying this for the longest..Luke 21:20 is not meaning 70 Ad, but it's meaning in the final days before the return of Jesus. And the ironic thing about it, at least in my case, this conclusion can still work without having to be premil. I mean, if there is a connection here, premil can't be correct, because it places this after the 1000 years.

Jerusalem as it belonged to Israel experiences destruction twice in scripture, and is in danger twice but is saved.

The first destruction was by the armies of Nebuchadnezzar about 600 BC. The second destruction was by the armies of Titus in 70 AD. In both of these cases the Temple was destroyed as well. I estimate that Luke Chapter 21 speaks of 70 AD. The main reason is in verse 24. "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." The word "and" is a conjunction and it joins the previous sentence and/or context to it. What came before is the destruction of the Temple and what comes after in verse 24 is the period of time where Jerusalem is "trodden by Gentiles." Then verse 24 goes on to say that this "treading by Gentiles" will continue until their time of dominion is over. Now Revelation 11:2 shows that this "treading by the Gentiles" lasts the whole three and a half years of the Great Tribulation. So it in effect, Jerusalem is trodden of the Gentiles right up until the second coming of Christ.

If one continues in Revelation one sees that actually Jerusalem is not destroyed again. The great battle for Jerusalem is fought OUTSIDE the city in the Valley of Megiddo (Rev.14:18-20, 16:12-16). You will also notice that although there is a great earthquake after the rapture of God's two Witnesses in Chapter 11 and 7'000 men are killed, only a tenth of the city is destroyed, not the whole city. It is assumed by many that the part of the city that will be destroyed will be the Temple in which the beast sets up his image, and the adjoining Dome of the Rock. So up until now the proof is that Jerusalem will encompassed with enemies at the end of this age but is saved by Christ's arrival, and the main battle will be away from the city. This is confirmed by Jeremiah's prediction in Chapter 33 that Jerusalem will be "safe" (v.16). If it was destroyed this sentence would not make sense.

Revelation 20 verse 9 is something totally different. It occurs after Christ has ruled this earth for 1'000 years. Satan, who has been bound in an abyss for this time is let loose. He stirs up a huge army from among the nations and attacks Jerusalem. Jerusalem has now been dwelling safely and in prosperity for a thousand years. The army that Satan gathers surrounds the city, but is resoundingly beaten by fire directly from heaven. During the 1'000 years of Christ's reign with the rod of iron, many individuals of the nations, which are still in the flesh, despite the excellent conditions on the earth during this time, will become disgruntled with Christ's strict rule. Added to this, they will be having lots of children during this time and these children would never have known our world of today under Satan. Satan being let loose is to test them all and Christ's kingdom. Many will follow Satan. But although Jerusalem is put in danger, there is no doubt about the safety of the city. Christ's Kingdom is an "everlasting" kingdom, so this test by Satan and a huge army cannot succeed (Ps.145:13; Dan.4:3, 34, 7:14, 27; 2 Pet.1:11).

To summarize; Jerusalem was destroyed twice, once in about 600 BC and once in 70 AD. Jerusalem will be in danger at the end of this age, but not destroyed. Jerusalem will be attacked after Christ's Millennial Reign and not destroyed.

[divaD]

There is a BIG difference between desolation and fire that devours. Surely, you've heard of the abomination that causes desolation. Do you think that abomination is causing fire from heaven, or desolation?

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.
(Dan 11:31)

Interesting you say this Raybob. Because in my mind, the passage you provided in Dan 11, it's the same passage Jesus likely was referring to in Matt 24, keeping in mind Jesus never expressed where in the book of Daniel, and it is also the same abomination that causes desolation mentioned in Dan chapter 9 I would think. So then, as you are reading the latter portion of Daniel 11, how then do you see that as meaning the time around 70 AD or so?

I think you have a compass fetish. The only thing that could connect those two verses is a compass.

BTW, I indicated in the OP a possible connection between the two, and not a for sure connection between the two. The only way to get to the bottom of it is to try and reason it out. And as far as compasses go, heck I never even learned how to use one. I was never in the boy scouts, maybe that's the reason why.

[divaD]

Do you think that abomination is causing fire from heaven, or desolation?

Sorry, but I forgot to address this in my other post. According to the book of Daniel, and if I am correct, the abomination that causeth the desolation in the end, this is placed(according to Dan 11) in the midst of the week(according to Dan 9). So IOW, this abomination leads up to the desolations. Now read Rev ch 18 again. Sure looks like desolations there, desolations caused by God via His judgments against Babylon, which I'm thinking is likely connected to the abomination that leads up to this.

[divaD]

Getting back to Rev 20:9 then, regardless whether this can be connected to the Luke 21 passage mentioned, one thing is for certain, the verse is compressed, meaning a lot of things transpires first, before God devours them from heaven. I would think this is likely expressed elsewhere in the book of Revelation, as well as in the gospels, and the OT as well. I think it's expressed in Zech 14 for one, as far as the OT goes. Notice what happens in Zech 14 via God.

Zechariah 14:12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

Clearly, in my mind at least, no reason to treat this event as non literal. With that in mind, clearly this event has not happened yet then. If we back up in Zech 14 we see this.

Zechariah 14:2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

Compare this to Rev 20:9.

Revelation 20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

The fire that devours them, this could be the same plague mentioned in Zechariah 14:12.

Then we have this in the OT as well.


Isaiah 66:15 For, behold, the LORD will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.
16 For by fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be many.


Any reason why this might not be the same fire mentioned in Rev 20:9? Also, the context leading up to this verse makes it clear that Jerusalem is in mind here... whether Jerusalem the literal city, or whether the spiritual city. Or maybe both even?

[John 8:32]

Because of verse 27...

Luk 21:27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

Ain't happened yet.