
Originally Posted by
randyk
Yes, in hope I believe against hope that you will honestly consider positions other than your own! No doubt you've made modifications in the past. But on this particular subject, and on others, I see little humility. Again, I'm hoping against hope.
I think I would speak in a less abrasive way if you were a little more reasonable on the points we're making. You act as if it is unnatural to see the opening statement of Jesus in the Olivet Discourse to be the *main topic.* How is it impossible for Jesus to introduce a subject, and then follow through with a discussion of that subject?
What I mean is, Jesus opens up the entire Discourse by making a shocking declaration, that the temple would be completely destroyed. This is completely contrary to what the Disciples had been thinking, that the Messiah would come to his temple, with great recognition of the value of that temple!
So then the Disciples want to know more. When would this happen? How does this relate to the future and promised restoration of Israel? What about the temple itself?
And so, the outline of the entire Discourse is right here! And yet you claim it is unnatural to see these things as the Main Topic of the discussion! It really does boggle my mind, how nonobjective you are, and how irritated you are over something so obviously reasonable in nature.
At worst, I'd think you would acknowledge that the destruction of the temple might be *part of* the Discussion? Instead, you make it 100% about the 2nd Coming.
It makes no sense to me that you see Luke 21 all about the destruction of the temple, and then say the equivalent information in the synoptic gospels is about something completely different! And I do understand your argument--you and FHG. However, it would be more fair of you to say that it is *possible* that all 3 synoptic gospels are saying what Luke 21 is saying, that it is about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Again, you just continue to double down and say this view is impossible, and that you will NEVER believe otherwise.
That is unreasonable to me.
Why you claim my view of the Great Tribulation is a "joke" again suggests you are not serious about engaging in honest discussions of this matter. Perhaps you just want to have fun filling in blanks in prophecy maps? For me, I'm interested in hearing from the Lord about how to properly interpreted the Scriptures. If you just want to insult other positions, that is your problem, and I'm not interested in that. But you've always been better than that. What's changed?
It is not a "joke" to interpret the Great Tribulation as most here actually do interpret it in regard to Luke 21. It has to do with the Dispersion of the Jews following the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem. So why not laugh at yourself?
My point about the condition of Israel prior to 70 AD is that Israel is not always in a condition to be judged as a nation for sin. Yes, there are always good people and bad people in Israel. But leaven works its way through an entire society over time. This was one of those times, right before 70 AD. Israel was worse than Sodom and Gomorrah, according to Jesus. That is worse than other times in Israel's history. Get back to me when you're feeling better?
Bookmarks