the Great Tribulation and the AoD

[marty fox]

Looks like they got it back though as of the last century. Now what?

Not sure what you mean. They don't have it like they uses too again when Jesus said

Matthew 23:37-38
37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 38 See! Your house is left to you desolate;

Was Jesus just talking about literal building or was Jerusalem the people and leadership of that time?

He told Jerusalem "See! Your house is left to you desolate;" Jesus was talking to the people when He called them Jerusalem

[randyk]

It is entirely consistent to think Luke 21 is about 70 AD and Matt 24 is not.
You need to read Luke 17, then realise that it is from the Olivet Discourse, and that Luke put things together topically.

The fact a couple of phrases lifted from the Olivet Discourse could be applied on a different occasion, with a slightly different slant, does *not* mean that Luke's version of the Olivet Discourse is different than Matthew's version of the Olivet Discourse! If Luke 21 describes the Olivet Discourse, and it does, then it would perfectly harmonize with Matthew 24, which describes the *exact same Discourse!*

It then makes you realise that there are TWO different occasions that Jesus spoke of in the Olivet Discourse in which you were to flee.
The sign for one (Luke 21 armies) is a different and incompatible sign with that in the other (Matt 24 the AoD).

This is not an incompatibility unless you decide, in advance, to interpret the AoD differently from the desolation of Jerusalem described in the different versions. If you determine that they are the same, and they are, then you will not find this an incompatibility.

Armies are OUTSIDE surrounding - which in 66 AD then left, and so Christians fled.
The AoD however is INSIDE - which is yet to happen, regardless of Randyk's attempts to explain it as having happened.

"Standing in the holy place" may obviously be explained as within the environs of the city of Jerusalem, including in the area immediately outside of the gates of the city. The city of Jerusalem was holy because God's holy temple was located there. And so, approaching the holy city and taking up the position to invade the city, can be viewed as an "abomination" that "stands in the holy place."

We've had this discussion before, and I do respect your arguments. And I'm not revisiting these arguments here, necessarily, to argue with you. However, some here have never fully appreciated my arguments. They have turned me off, thinking I'm just a Preterist, who discounts all future prophecy. But I'm not. My position is, I believe, the strongest view of the AoD in the Early Church. Luke's version seals the deal for me.

For these to be about the same event, means you have armies inside and outside, in which case you cannot flee.

Compare, and tell me that the AoD is not the Roman invasion of Jerusalem....

Matthew 24.15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. 18 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.
22 “If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time.
Matthew 24.26 “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28 Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather."

Mark 13.14 “When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 15 Let no one on the housetop go down or enter the house to take anything out. 16 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 17 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 18 Pray that this will not take place in winter, 19 because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again.
20 “If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them. 21 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. 22 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 23 So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time."

Luke 17.22 Then he said to his disciples, “The time is coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, but you will not see it. 23 People will tell you, ‘There he is!’ or ‘Here he is!’ Do not go running off after them."
Luke 21.20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

You would have to be dishonest with yourself to deny that these common statements and common order reflect more than a single discourse! Jesus here is stating 4 things that I have outlined for your comparison. There is:

1) the AoD
2) Jews fleeing to the mountains
3) difficulty for pregnant women and nursing mothers
4) distress for Israel

If you compare Luke's version of the AoD with the version in Matthew and Mark you can legitimately define the AoD as the 66-70 AD invasion of Jerusalem by the Romans. And if you compare Luke's version of the "distress" with the version in Matthew and Mark you can legitimately define the "distress" as the NT Diaspora of the Jews, beginning with 70 AD.

Nothing I say here is original. And it is sanctioned by the testimony of ancient Christian interpreters. It may seem as if "standing in the holy place" must be some kind of sacrilegious placement of an idol or pagan object in the temple. But Jesus clearly references Daniel for confirmation that this has to do with the destruction of the "city and the sanctuary," which is mentioned in Dan 9.26-27.

Jesus is here using the familiar phraseology, alluding to Antiochus 4, in order to convey a similar kind of pagan trespass, and a similar kind of sacrilege. But in reality, Luke describes it plainly, and Daniel describes it plainly, as a pagan invasion of the holy city and the sanctuary.

[divaD]

Yes we are very close but slightly different. Yes some christian Jews did suffer the tribulation against the Jews but that wasn't "The great tribulation" but it was a great tribulation. "The great tribulation" from revelation chapter 7 was against the church which included Jewish Christians.

First I see "The great tribulation" as against Christians only which includes christian Jews (Rev 7). So where you see the great tribulation is against the Jews which included christian Jews I see the great tribulation against the Christians which includes christian Jews. Again there can be many great tribulations but only one Great tribulation. Let me show you were I get my idea from

Revelation 12:13-16
13 Now when the dragon saw that he had been cast to the earth, he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male Child. 14 But the woman was given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness to her place, where she is nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent. 15 So the serpent spewed water out of his mouth like a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away by the flood. 16 But the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up the flood which the dragon had spewed out of his mouth.

So above we see the woman (Israel made up of believing and unbelieving Jews) was protected by God from the dragon (satan) for a set time. We know the women is Israel because Jesus came from her and she is referenced from the Old testament events (carried to safety upon eagle wings like stated during the Exodus and being saved from the flood)

Now verse 17 is the key

Rev 12:17
17 And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Now as we see above "the great tribulation is against the church (both Jew and gentile) the ones who keep the testimony of Jesus

Both Matthew 24:21 and Revelation 7:14 say great tribulation, and not "the' great tribulation. Doing a phrase search in the KJV for 'the great tribulation', there is no such phrase. Obviously then, great tribulation in both Matthew 24:21 and Revelation 7:14 are referring to the same events, and that Revelation 7 undeniably proves it has zero to do with the events of 70 AD. But I know how things work around here though. Regardless how many times one undeniably debunks something, there's always going to be those that claim nothing has been debunked at all. I would think we are all in this for the same reasons, that being in pursuit of the truth no matter what it might be, even if the truth proves us wrong at times. But by being in denial of being proven wrong at times, that tends to contradict what one should be in this for, that being in pursuit of the truth no matter what it might be. To me it's not about winning the debate, to me it's about what was Jesus meaning in the Discourse, and not what He wasn't meaning in the Discourse instead.

[divaD]

Not sure what you mean. They don't have it like they uses too again when Jesus said

Matthew 23:37-38
37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 38 See! Your house is left to you desolate;

Was Jesus just talking about literal building or was Jerusalem the people and leadership of that time?

He told Jerusalem "See! Your house is left to you desolate;" Jesus was talking to the people when He called them Jerusalem

Ezekiel 38 and 39 have to be fulfilled or we have some false prophecies in the Bible. Anyone that has read those two chapters would know that it is God Himself that will bring these things about. What that means is this. The regathering back into their land, God is behind that, though I realize many deny that.

Ezekiel 39:7*So will I make my holy name known in the midst of my people Israel; and I will not let them pollute my holy name any more: and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD, the Holy One in Israel.


You see then, God still calls these His people, and He for certain isn't meaning the NT church in this context.

[bluesky22]

But I showed that in these three synoptic gospels the Great Tribulation is the same. It is the great tribulation of the Jewish People that began in 70 AD and ends with the return of Christ. All 3 accounts say the exact same thing! This Discourse Jesus gave *while the Law was still in effect,* while *Israel was still the main focus as God's People.*

Amen

It is not, of course, that I deny there will be a future Reign of Antichrist. I fully expect that. However, I don't believe that God's wrath is poured out, in the sense that it can be defined as "God's eschatological Wrath."

Randy, I would be interested in knowing what verses support a future reign of "a" anti-Christ.

Here are the verses that talk about an AC.

1 John 2:22

Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.

1 John 4:3

and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.

1 John 2:18

Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.

2 John 1:7

For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh This is the deceiver and the antichrist



Here is what I see.

The anti-Christ was first century.

I believe these verses refer to the Jews of the first century. I do not believe theses verse refer to Nero or Titus.

The word Antichrist is only found 4 times in all of Scripture. It is not found in the Book of Revelation. It is not the same as the Beast.

I sincerely believe John (an apostle to the Jews according to Gal. 2) wrote it in a veiled way to condemn the unbelieving Jews he was ministering to in Jerusalem:

1. Denies the Father and the Son. (they deny the Trinity and that the Father and Son are One)
2. Does not confess Jesus is from God
3. Who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. In other words they deny the Incarnation, God becoming man in the flesh. (They acknowledge that Jesus came and existed but that he was a demon who led Israel astray.)

Reason it out from the 4 passages!

The anti-Christ Is not a single individual but ANYONE (apostate Jews and all) who denies the deity of Christ, the oneness of Christ with the Father (ie. the Trinity) and deny that Christ the Messiah was incarnate/ came in the flesh. All Muslims are anti-Christ; all unbelievers are anti-Christ; all Jews who deny that Jesus is the Messiah are anti-Christ.

It is not to be associated with the Beast exclusively, though he himself was antichrist as well!

Notice also John says they are living in the "last hour!" when he wrote 1 John in the 60's AD! He says it twice in 1 John 2: 18.

The last hour of WHAT? He knows the end is near when he wrote this in the 60's AD!

70 AD was coming for the Jews!

Food for thought anyway...

Regards,

Blue

[marty fox]

Both Matthew 24:21 and Revelation 7:14 say great tribulation, and not "the' great tribulation. Doing a phrase search in the KJV for 'the great tribulation', there is no such phrase. Obviously then, great tribulation in both Matthew 24:21 and Revelation 7:14 are referring to the same events, and that Revelation 7 undeniably proves it has zero to do with the events of 70 AD. But I know how things work around here though. Regardless how many times one undeniably debunks something, there's always going to be those that claim nothing has been debunked at all. I would think we are all in this for the same reasons, that being in pursuit of the truth no matter what it might be, even if the truth proves us wrong at times. But by being in denial of being proven wrong at times, that tends to contradict what one should be in this for, that being in pursuit of the truth no matter what it might be. To me it's not about winning the debate, to me it's about what was Jesus meaning in the Discourse, and not what He wasn't meaning in the Discourse instead.

But I don't think that second part of Rev 7 has anything to do with 70AD and there are many different great tribulations

one on the saints one on the Jews one against the world

[ForHisglory]

The fact a couple of phrases lifted from the Olivet Discourse could be applied on a different occasion, with a slightly different slant, does *not* mean that Luke's version of the Olivet Discourse is different than Matthew's version of the Olivet Discourse! If Luke 21 describes the Olivet Discourse, and it does, then it would perfectly harmonize with Matthew 24, which describes the *exact same Discourse!*

Are you really claiming Jesus told the events of the Olivet Discourse at a different time to when he was on the Mount of Olives?
Actually Luke 17 matches what is stated in Matt 24.. However Luke 21 has some bits which match and other bits which do not.

This is not an incompatibility unless you decide, in advance, to interpret the AoD differently from the desolation of Jerusalem described in the different versions. If you determine that they are the same, and they are, then you will not find this an incompatibility.

Actually, no need to determine in advance. The question is HOW can the AoD be the SAME sign as the armies surrounding Jerusalem.
They can't is the very simple answer. So the question is "Did Jesus give TWO signs for the SAME event?" If yes, then why, especially as they look very different? If not then it means there are TWO events. This is very simple.

"Standing in the holy place" may obviously be explained as within the environs of the city of Jerusalem, including in the area immediately outside of the gates of the city. The city of Jerusalem was holy because God's holy temple was located there. And so, approaching the holy city and taking up the position to invade the city, can be viewed as an "abomination" that "stands in the holy place."

We've had this discussion before, and I do respect your arguments. And I'm not revisiting these arguments here, necessarily, to argue with you. However, some here have never fully appreciated my arguments. They have turned me off, thinking I'm just a Preterist, who discounts all future prophecy. But I'm not. My position is, I believe, the strongest view of the AoD in the Early Church. Luke's version seals the deal for me.

As NO ONE in the ECF believed the AoD had happened, and we have discussed this before, then I really do not get why you claim that they did.
Further "Standing in the Holy Place" may not simply mean within the environs of the city of Jerusalem. If it did then the AoD had been happening throughout Jesus' lifetime, and would NOT constitute a sign of any kind which would be different to what had been happening.
Standing in the Holy Place refers to the Temple, and more specifically the "Holy Place" is the part in which only the priests entered, which is just outside the Holy of Holies. It is mentioned in Luke 1 as the place where Zechariah went in and met the angel.
If we take your approach then we could say that Israel was the holy place as it was the land of his holy people containing the holy city with the holy mount and the holy temple with the holy of holies in it.
Simple scripture clarifies where the place is.

Compare, and tell me that the AoD is not the Roman invasion of Jerusalem....

Yes, it is NOT.

You would have to be dishonest with yourself to deny that these common statements and common order reflect more than a single discourse! Jesus here is stating 4 things that I have outlined for your comparison. There is:

1) the AoD
2) Jews fleeing to the mountains
3) difficulty for pregnant women and nursing mothers
4) distress for Israel

Absolutely NO dishonesty required.
You missed, the armies being seen surrounding the city.
You missed, that ONLY in Matt and Mark is it declared as a Day in which to flee. In Luke it is NOT, but instead is stated as Days.
You missed that Luke mentions it is distress for Israel, but Matthew and Mark do NOT. Instead with them it is about Tribulation for the whole world.
You missed that AFTER the time to flee in Luke the city is trampled, which refers to the time until at least 1948, if not now, but in Matthew and Mark it speaks of the return of Jesus.

What you do is see the FACT that BOTH were spoken of on that Day, and therefore jump to the conclusion they are about the SAME event. It is a possibility initially, but when you find just ONE FACT which does not match up, then you realise it is about TWO events which are separated in time, but BOTH of which speak of Jerusalem. You make the SAME error as when reading about an anointed one in Dan 9, so assume every mention of the anointed one is the SAME person.

If you compare Luke's version of the AoD with the version in Matthew and Mark you can legitimately define the AoD as the 66-70 AD invasion of Jerusalem by the Romans. And if you compare Luke's version of the "distress" with the version in Matthew and Mark you can legitimately define the "distress" as the NT Diaspora of the Jews, beginning with 70 AD.

No you can't.
In Luke the armies did NOT enter Jerusalem UNTIL a LATER time. In Matthew and Mark you cannot equate the distress of the Jews, and the city being trampled - which lasts two thousand years, with a great tribulation which is never to be equaled and which is cut short, for otherwise ALL mankind would die.

Nothing I say here is original. And it is sanctioned by the testimony of ancient Christian interpreters. It may seem as if "standing in the holy place" must be some kind of sacrilegious placement of an idol or pagan object in the temple. But Jesus clearly references Daniel for confirmation that this has to do with the destruction of the "city and the sanctuary," which is mentioned in Dan 9.26-27.

Not by ancient Christian interpreters. Some people who use Josephus claim it.
As Dan 9 has the events of verse 26 and 27 as entirely separate, to make the claim may be why people call you a preterist, along with your claim about this generation, which IS a preterist claim. If that claim were correct, I would be a preterist. However it isn't.

Jesus is here using the familiar phraseology, alluding to Antiochus 4, in order to convey a similar kind of pagan trespass, and a similar kind of sacrilege. But in reality, Luke describes it plainly, and Daniel describes it plainly, as a pagan invasion of the holy city and the sanctuary.

Now here we agree that Jesus DID use familiar phraseology when speaking of the AoD. This is NOT what occurred in Jerusalem in 66 AD.
There is NO WAY to make the TWO different signs, the SAME.
The AoD of Antiochus as described by Daniel was something ACTUALLY standing in the holy place - that is IN THE TEMPLE!

[marty fox]

Amen



Randy, I would be interested in knowing what verses support a future reign of "a" anti-Christ. Here are the verses that talk about an AC.

1 John 2:22
Verse Concepts
Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.

1 John 4:3
Verse Concepts
and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.

1 John 2:18
Verse Concepts
Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.

2 John 1:7
Verse Concepts
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh This is the deceiver and the antichrist




Here is what I see.

The anti-Christ was first century.

I believe these verses refer to the Jews of the first century. I do not believe theses verse refer to Nero or Titus.

The word Antichrist is only found 4 times in all of Scripture. It is not found in the Book of Revelation. It is not the same as the Beast.

I sincerely believe John (an apostle to the Jews according to Gal. 2) wrote it in a veiled way to condemn the unbelieving Jews he was ministering to in Jerusalem:

1. Denies the Father and the Son. (they deny the Trinity and that the Father and Son are One)
2. Does not confess Jesus is from God
3. Who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. In other words they deny the Incarnation, God becoming man in the flesh. (They acknowledge that Jesus came and existed but that he was a demon who led Israel astray.)

Reason it out from the 4 passages!

The anti-Christ Is not a single individual but ANYONE (apostate Jews and all) who denies the deity of Christ, the oneness of Christ with the Father (ie. the Trinity) and deny that Christ the Messiah was incarnate/ came in the flesh. All Muslims are anti-Christ; all unbelievers are anti-Christ; all Jews who deny that Jesus is the Messiah are anti-Christ.

It is not to be associated with the Beast exclusively, though he himself was antichrist as well!

Notice also John says they are living in the "last hour!" when he wrote 1 John in the 60's AD! He says it twice in 1 John 2: 18.

The last hour of WHAT? He knows the end is near when he wrote this in the 60's AD!

70 AD was coming for the Jews!

Regards,

Blue

Fantastic post.......................

[divaD]

But I don't think that second part of Rev 7 has anything to do with 70AD and there are many different great tribulations

one on the saints one on the Jews one against the world

In Matt 24 though, that great tribulation isn't meaning what happened in 70 AD. The elect in that chapter are meaning the church and not unbelieving Jews instead.Any unbiased reasonable person would have to agree unbelieving Jews do not fit the following text.

Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Unbelieving Jews are already deceived. Unbelieving Jews couldn't care less about false christs, false great signs and wonders, etc. In the first century they were face to face with the real Christ, witnessed many great signs and wonders, yet many of them still denied Christ. You don't try and deceive someone already deceived, you try and deceive someone who is not already deceived. Between unbelieving Jews and the church, which of these two would be a better fit for one who is not already deceived?

[ForHisglory]

Fantastic post.......................

Not really.
It misses the point that there clearly was a SINGULAR Anti-Christ who was expected.
It notes that there were Anti-Christs plural, yet claims this fits ALL uses of the phrase.
It has 1 John and 2 John BOTH written BEFORE 70 AD. Now is that correct? It is possible, but the question is where or whom were the letters written to?
From external writings of the ECF it is most probably Ephesus and John seems to have gone to Ephesus AFTER Paul, then this points to a mid 60s AD, when he would have gone there. Then at some point in time he left and wrote to them when he learnt about the problems they were facing.
As no mention of what had happened in Jerusalem is given then it is possibly still before then, or some years after.
In Revelation itself, written in the mid 90s AD, we find Ephesus mentioned in chapter 2, which connects especially in verse 4 with the major theme running through 1 John. So possibly 1 John is written after Revelation to encourage them further to love one another.

[randyk]

Amen



Randy, I would be interested in knowing what verses support a future reign of "a" anti-Christ.

Here are the verses that talk about an AC.

1 John 2:22

Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.

1 John 4:3

and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.

1 John 2:18

Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.

2 John 1:7

For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh This is the deceiver and the antichrist



Here is what I see.

The anti-Christ was first century.

I believe these verses refer to the Jews of the first century. I do not believe theses verse refer to Nero or Titus.

The word Antichrist is only found 4 times in all of Scripture. It is not found in the Book of Revelation. It is not the same as the Beast.

I sincerely believe John (an apostle to the Jews according to Gal. 2) wrote it in a veiled way to condemn the unbelieving Jews he was ministering to in Jerusalem:

1. Denies the Father and the Son. (they deny the Trinity and that the Father and Son are One)
2. Does not confess Jesus is from God
3. Who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. In other words they deny the Incarnation, God becoming man in the flesh. (They acknowledge that Jesus came and existed but that he was a demon who led Israel astray.)

Reason it out from the 4 passages!

The anti-Christ Is not a single individual but ANYONE (apostate Jews and all) who denies the deity of Christ, the oneness of Christ with the Father (ie. the Trinity) and deny that Christ the Messiah was incarnate/ came in the flesh. All Muslims are anti-Christ; all unbelievers are anti-Christ; all Jews who deny that Jesus is the Messiah are anti-Christ.

It is not to be associated with the Beast exclusively, though he himself was antichrist as well!

Notice also John says they are living in the "last hour!" when he wrote 1 John in the 60's AD! He says it twice in 1 John 2: 18.

The last hour of WHAT? He knows the end is near when he wrote this in the 60's AD!

70 AD was coming for the Jews!

Food for thought anyway...

Regards,

Blue

Well I disagree, but I certainly like and identify with the burden I see in you. You transfer Trinitarian and Christological concerns into the identity of the Antichrist. In other words, you sound like an apologist. I have a feel for that, as well, even though I think these specific concerns came to be detailed later.

Initially, though, I do believe the Antichrist was a person described as coming immediately before the advent of Christ's Kingdom. His biblical origin is in Dan 7, the "little horn." He appears very much like Daniel's other prophecy of Antiochus 4. These two are very similar, but different characters, in my view.

The Antichrist, John knew, was something that the Jews anticipated. Paul certainly spells it out in 2 Thes 2. But there were also current antichrists. And it is this that I think John was focusing upon.

In fact I think the *present antichrists* is what Jesus made the priority in his own generation. The time of the coming of Christ was irrelevant to Jesus. He relegated the "timing and dates" of prophetic events to the sovereign will of the Father. We, on the other hand, are to be concerned about our own spiritual condition and our own time. We cannot possibly prepare for future prophetic events. We can only walk in the Spirit today.

So what are the antichrists of our own time? They are precisely what you explained them to be. Since I feel this is our priority, we are in agreement on the most important elements of what you shared.

[marty fox]

Not really.
It misses the point that there clearly was a SINGULAR Anti-Christ who was expected.
It notes that there were Anti-Christs plural, yet claims this fits ALL uses of the phrase.
It has 1 John and 2 John BOTH written BEFORE 70 AD. Now is that correct? It is possible, but the question is where or whom were the letters written to?
From external writings of the ECF it is most probably Ephesus and John seems to have gone to Ephesus AFTER Paul, then this points to a mid 60s AD, when he would have gone there. Then at some point in time he left and wrote to them when he learnt about the problems they were facing.
As no mention of what had happened in Jerusalem is given then it is possibly still before then, or some years after.
In Revelation itself, written in the mid 90s AD, we find Ephesus mentioned in chapter 2, which connects especially in verse 4 with the major theme running through 1 John. So possibly 1 John is written after Revelation to encourage them further to love one another.

Yes the one coming was Nero but I believe that revelation was written in the mid 60's of the first century

[marty fox]

In Matt 24 though, that great tribulation isn't meaning what happened in 70 AD. The elect in that chapter are meaning the church and not unbelieving Jews instead.Any unbiased reasonable person would have to agree unbelieving Jews do not fit the following text.

Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Unbelieving Jews are already deceived. Unbelieving Jews couldn't care less about false christs, false great signs and wonders, etc. In the first century they were face to face with the real Christ, witnessed many great signs and wonders, yet many of them still denied Christ. You don't try and deceive someone already deceived, you try and deceive someone who is not already deceived. Between unbelieving Jews and the church, which of these two would be a better fit for one who is not already deceived?

Actually you continue to deceive them

Matthew 24:22
22 “If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.

It was the elect that God chose to survive to go and tell the story of what happened in 70AD so that they would see that Jesus prophecy happend when He said that it would happen proving that he was the Messiah

Josephus stated that if the siege lasted longer no one would of survived it all fits history

[randyk]

Are you really claiming Jesus told the events of the Olivet Discourse at a different time to when he was on the Mount of Olives?

No, I was laying aside, for the moment, the issue of where Luke 17 fits in. I didn't want this to detract from the relevance of Luke 21 as one of the synoptic gospel accounts of the Olivet Discourse. The point is, all three versions were the *same discourse.* We can deal with Luke 17 elsewhere. Of course, you know we already have!

Actually Luke 17 matches what is stated in Matt 24.. However Luke 21 has some bits which match and other bits which do not.

My argument is that the parts in Luke 21 that do not match with Mat 24 and Mark 13 help *explain* what Mt 24 and Mark 13 mean. These are not critical differences, but actually, *helpful* differences! The account of Luke 21 helps to explain that the AoD in Mat 24 and Mar 13 is the 70 AD desolation of the temple by the Romans. Technically, I would say Jesus' Discourse here concerned the entire period from 66 to 70 AD, with a reference to the "Jewish distress" that has followed throughout the NT age.

Actually, no need to determine in advance. The question is HOW can the AoD be the SAME sign as the armies surrounding Jerusalem.
They can't is the very simple answer. So the question is "Did Jesus give TWO signs for the SAME event?" If yes, then why, especially as they look very different? If not then it means there are TWO events. This is very simple.

I agree. You've made it very simple. And the answer for me is, the differences were helpful--not critical. This was a *single event.*

As NO ONE in the ECF believed the AoD had happened, and we have discussed this before, then I really do not get why you claim that they did.

I don't recall ever saying or admitting that the ECF believed the AoD was strictly future? That's positively false! I claim they identified the AoD as the 66-70 AD war because we have the quotes!

Further "Standing in the Holy Place" may not simply mean within the environs of the city of Jerusalem. If it did then the AoD had been happening throughout Jesus' lifetime, and would NOT constitute a sign of any kind which would be different to what had been happening.

The sign was not simply "standing in the holy place." It was standing in the holy place to effect a "desolation!" That was the sign.

Standing in the Holy Place refers to the Temple, and more specifically the "Holy Place" is the part in which only the priests entered, which is just outside the Holy of Holies. It is mentioned in Luke 1 as the place where Zechariah went in and met the angel.

I've shown where the city of Jerusalem is referred to as a "holy place" as well. I would have to look it up to confirm it, though. In this case, the prophecy calls for sacrilege committed against the *city* as well as against the "temple." So they are tied together. Coming and standing at the city gates would be the sign that a pagan abomination stands within the environs of the holy city. It may not be technically *within* the gates initially, but that was certainly the intent of the invasion.

If we take your approach then we could say that Israel was the holy place as it was the land of his holy people containing the holy city with the holy mount and the holy temple with the holy of holies in it.
Simple scripture clarifies where the place is.

Yes, but this is determined by context. The context is, as indicated by Daniel and Luke, the destruction of the "city and the sanctuary."

Yes, it is NOT.

?????? The mind boggles...

Absolutely NO dishonesty required.
You missed, the armies being seen surrounding the city.
You missed, that ONLY in Matt and Mark is it declared as a Day in which to flee. In Luke it is NOT, but instead is stated as Days.
You missed that Luke mentions it is distress for Israel, but Matthew and Mark do NOT. Instead with them it is about Tribulation for the whole world.
You missed that AFTER the time to flee in Luke the city is trampled, which refers to the time until at least 1948, if not now, but in Matthew and Mark it speaks of the return of Jesus.

This is why I tried to keep Luke 17 out of it. There are answers, but entering foreign elements into the single picture I've provided just clouds it up.
1) One Discourse
2) All three versions provide the same 4 elements.
3) All 4 elements compare favorably with one another, unless you refuse to accept the possibility that they compare favorably.
4) The Roman invasion of 66-70 AD compares favorably with the AoD.
5) The Jewish Dispersion following 70-135 AD compares favorably with the distress.

We can talk about the "fleeing" of the Christian Jews later.

What you do is see the FACT that BOTH were spoken of on that Day, and therefore jump to the conclusion they are about the SAME event. It is a possibility initially, but when you find just ONE FACT which does not match up, then you realise it is about TWO events which are separated in time, but BOTH of which speak of Jerusalem. You make the SAME error as when reading about an anointed one in Dan 9, so assume every mention of the anointed one is the SAME person.

Since Jesus referenced the AoD in Daniel, and since Jesus was talking about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, the *only* AoD listed in Daniel, matching that description, is Dan 9, the 70 Weeks prophecy. In that prophecy we get a prediction of the destruction of the "city and the sanctuary." The one mentioned in the next verse is "the abomination that causes desolation." Clearly, the AoD, then does fit the Roman Army, which in 70 AD destroyed the city and the sanctuary. Actually, the city was finished off in 135 AD.

No you can't.
In Luke the armies did NOT enter Jerusalem UNTIL a LATER time. In Matthew and Mark you cannot equate the distress of the Jews, and the city being trampled - which lasts two thousand years, with a great tribulation which is never to be equaled and which is cut short, for otherwise ALL mankind would die.

Yes, there were two comings of the Roman Army in the war 66-70 AD. We are agreed on that. The 1st coming, by Cestius Gallus, allowed the Christians a sign by which to flee. The 2nd coming, by Titus, broke in to the city, and desolated both the city and the sanctuary. This does not change the picture. This, on the contrary, compliments it. It confirms it historically.

Not by ancient Christian interpreters. Some people who use Josephus claim it.
As Dan 9 has the events of verse 26 and 27 as entirely separate, to make the claim may be why people call you a preterist, along with your claim about this generation, which IS a preterist claim. If that claim were correct, I would be a preterist. However it isn't.

There you go again, name calling. I would call it borderline slander, except that the definition of "preterist" is somewhat controversial, and perhaps evolving. I am *not* a preterist except in the sense that I believe the AoD was the Roman Army in the 1st generation of the Church. Using that definition many of the ECFs would also be called "preterists," right?

But calling me a name like this just muddies the waters, and creates unnecessary hostility. That causes others, who see this, to think that I am a preterist in other ways too. I do not interpret the book of Revelation as the generation of John! I interpret Revelation as a *futurist!* I do *not* appreciate your seedy tactics.

Now here we agree that Jesus DID use familiar phraseology when speaking of the AoD. This is NOT what occurred in Jerusalem in 66 AD.
There is NO WAY to make the TWO different signs, the SAME.
The AoD of Antiochus as described by Daniel was something ACTUALLY standing in the holy place - that is IN THE TEMPLE!

The sign of the Roman Army coming twice may be rolled into one, in my opinion. It came under Cestius Gallus to warn the Christians to flee. But the purposes in coming was to "stand in the holy place," and to desolate both the city and the sanctuary. I don't have problems with the wording like you do.

[divaD]

Actually you continue to deceive them

How do I continue to deceive them? What is that supposed to mean? We're focusing on what the text in Matt 24 means, and that has nothing to do with me one way or the other.