Has the Great Tribulation started or is it still in the future?

[Trivalee]

Sorry to hear that. If you're wrong then, how are you ever going to know the truth?

On this one, I am not WRONG.

That boggles my mind. Each of the versions begin with a blanket statement from Christ saying the temple will be destroyed, stone by stone. And yet you think this has nothing to do with 70 AD? You even believe that Luke 21's version has nothing to do with the destruction of the temple in 70 AD? You're welcome to live in the world you make for yourself. Personally, I choose to remain open to whatever God wants to show me.

Don't twist my words.

* The 3 gospels correctly recorded Christ' statement that the temple would be destroyed.
* However, the temple's destruction is NOT the primary theme of the discourse.
* The focus is the Second Coming and the events leading to it; wars between nations, betrayal between brethren, persecutions against the faithful, the great tribulation, etc.
* I don't know where the claim that I believe that Luke 21 is not about 70 AD came from? I never made such an allusion.
* If anyone is living in a world they made for themselves, it's those who claim that the Great Tribulation started at the time of Antiochus 4 and will continue until Christ returns. The joke of this position is the refusal to acknowledge that Jesus spoke of the GT in the future tense (Matt 24:21) in the discourse.

Nations rise and fall. Israel had better times and worse times. When the nation apostacized, that's when judgment fell upon the nation. During the times of the Judges, God determined, after some time, to deliver His people.

You lost me here because I have always maintained that from the time of Moses to 70 AD, there have always been devout and "apostatizing" Jews. Even at points in their history when sin and rejection of the Law were unprecedented that God had to bring various judgments on them, there always remained many who steadfastly adhered to the Law. This was no different from the generation that lived in 70 AD.

Yes, I understand. You think the Abomination of *Desolation* was not the *Desolation* of the temple. If you're not open to my position, no sense discussing it, right?

"If you're not open to my position, no sense discussing it, right?" I consider this question rather strange given that we've been having these discussions for over two years now.

[randyk]

On this one, I am not WRONG.



Don't twist my words.

* The 3 gospels correctly recorded Christ' statement that the temple would be destroyed.
* However, the temple's destruction is NOT the primary theme of the discourse.
* The focus is the Second Coming and the events leading to it; wars between nations, betrayal between brethren, persecutions against the faithful, the great tribulation, etc.
* I don't know where the claim that I believe that Luke 21 is not about 70 AD came from? I never made such an allusion.
* If anyone is living in a world they made for themselves, it's those who claim that the Great Tribulation started at the time of Antiochus 4 and will continue until Christ returns. The joke of this position is the refusal to acknowledge that Jesus spoke of the GT in the future tense (Matt 24:21) in the discourse.



You lost me here because I have always maintained that from the time of Moses to 70 AD, there have always been devout and "apostatizing" Jews. Even at points in their history when sin and rejection of the Law were unprecedented that God had to bring various judgments on them, there always remained many who steadfastly adhered to the Law. This was no different from the generation that lived in 70 AD.



"If you're not open to my position, no sense discussing it, right?" I consider this question rather strange given that we've been having these discussions for over two years now.

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?

[Keraz]

I agree that "league" is a better term to describe this evil agreement between the Antichrist and the nations at that time. Although, mature Christians (versed in KJV language) doesn't have any problem understanding that "covenant" in this context is not to be confused with God's covenant with man.

With reference to "nation of all the Christian peoples, then living in all of the holy Land" are you suggesting that ALL the Christians on earth will migrate to the Holy Land BEFORE Jesus returns? Please clarify?

Thanks Trivalee. Yes, most thinking people do see this agreement between the Anti-Christ leader of the One World Govt and the leaders of the Christian nation of Beulah; as a 7 year treaty of peaceful relations. I believe it will be the total destruction of Gog and his army that will motivate the AC to negotiate this treaty.

I have posted a thread on this forum; Christians will occupy the holy Land. This is what is prophesied and God will, at last, have a people in His Land who are His witnesses and His Light to the nations. Here is a scripture that is very informative, note how the prophets always keep Israel and Judah separate.

Ezekiel 11:15-20 The whole people of Israel [the 10 tribes] to whom Judah [the Jews] have said: The Land is now ours to possess. The Lord says: When I sent Israel far away around the world, for a while I was their protector and blessed them wherever they lived. I shall gather My people from their dispersion and give the Land of Israel to them. I will remove their hearts of stone and put a new spirit in them. They will be My people and I will be their God.
hearts of stone....Ezekiel 37:14, Ezekiel 39:25-29, Jeremiah 31:31-34

This prophecy says how the Jews believe the holy Land is their possession. But the Lord will give it to His righteous faithful Christian people, the peoples who have been blessed with prosperity and strength. They will be joined by born again Christians from every race, nation and language. Isaiah 56:1-8, Revelation 5:9-10

[Trivalee]

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?

I honestly fail to see why you believe am not considering any other opinion than mine? Do I have to agree with what I believe in my bones to be wrong before you accept that I've "considered" it? If I've not considered your argument, why are we having this discussion? But if considering your view means agreeing with you, then I regret that I'm unable to do so in this case.

This is the second time you've labelled my position as "abrasive" and I wonder why? I have an objective approach to scripture, however, I will not waver on a point am convinced to be right. My understanding and that shared by over 97% of believers is that the main focus of the discourse is about Christ' Glorious Return. The destruction of the temple happens to be just one among other events that will happen to the Jews and the wider church before the Day of the Lord. So why am I been called abrasive for being true to my convictions?

It doesn't matter how Jesus started in his response to the 3 questions the disciples asked. Rather, it's about a comprehensive study of the discourse in full with the view to ascertain its overall objective. And the 3 synoptic gospels got that, with Luke taking a slight detour after making his case in ch. 17 and then using ch. 21 to elaborate on the destruction of the temple.

I am amused by your claim that my challenging your position is mind-boggling, non-objective and irritating over something only you see as "reasonable". I've always known you to be cool-headed, but you suddenly seem impatient and rattled that I'm not agreeing with you.

Leaving the AoD aside, to claim that the Great Tribulation lasts 2500+ years and that the shortening of it to save Israel from extinction, is a viewpoint I will never accept. You have held this position for years, yet I don't remember calling you non objective, irritated etc, for not dropping it to embrace mine.

For a diligent scholar, it beats imagination that you ignored Luke 17 and built your whole case on ch. 21 alone. It is, therefore, wrong to ignore the eschatological connotation of everything else that Jesus said and narrow it to 70 AD!

Randy, you may call me whatever you like, I am just satisfied my with own understanding of Christ' message to Israel and the church on the Olivet discourse. I have carefully considered your argument (a) the Romans as the AoD (b) the GT lasting 2500+ years (c) shortening it meaning to save Israel from extinction. But on each of these points, I am unable to accept any as the true representation of what Jesus plainly said.

At the risk of being repetitive, the destruction of the temple is just ONE of many events that will come to pass before the Lord returns. From Christ' perspective, it is more valuable to warn and prepare the disciples and the wider church of the events that will be a pitfall so they would recognise them and persevere to the end. It makes zero sense to me that Jesus spent so much time to reiterate the destruction of the temple. Saving and preserving souls for eternity always trumps with Jesus in my thinking.

[randyk]

I honestly fail to see why you believe am not considering any other opinion than mine? Do I have to agree with what I believe in my bones to be wrong before you accept that I've "considered" it? If I've not considered your argument, why are we having this discussion? But if considering your view means agreeing with you, then I regret that I'm unable to do so in this case.

No, of course I'm not suggesting you have to agree with me! I'm only talking about your emphasis that my position is untenable. Often, I disagree with certain positions, but admit they are tenable. And then I give the reasons why I disagree. In this case you just treat what I see as a very reasonable position as untenable. Why? I don't think you've explained why my positions are unreasonable. I already know why you disagree with my positions.

This is the second time you've labelled my position as "abrasive" and I wonder why? I have an objective approach to scripture, however, I will not waver on a point am convinced to be right. My understanding and that shared by over 97% of believers is that the main focus of the discourse is about Christ' Glorious Return. The destruction of the temple happens to be just one among other events that will happen to the Jews and the wider church before the Day of the Lord. So why am I been called abrasive for being true to my convictions?

I think I called *my own comments* as "abrasive." Your comments were insulting, because you treat my views as irrational. Don't you understand that there is a reason for my views? Then why do you treat them as a "joke?" Do you really mean to base your positions on the current popular views? If so, you have little depth in your study of the subject. I think you're capable of stepping outside of a B quality discussion, to consider more in depth arguments.

It doesn't matter how Jesus started in his response to the 3 questions the disciples asked. Rather, it's about a comprehensive study of the discourse in full with the view to ascertain its overall objective. And the 3 synoptic gospels got that, with Luke taking a slight detour after making his case in ch. 17 and then using ch. 21 to elaborate on the destruction of the temple.

There is no argument here, except recourse to your previous "popular" argument.

I am amused by your claim that my challenging your position is mind-boggling, non-objective and irritating over something only you see as "reasonable". I've always known you to be cool-headed, but you suddenly seem impatient and rattled that I'm not agreeing with you.

No, I've always been a bit of a "hot-head," with an ability to change gears pretty easily. It just takes a few minutes.... But for what it's worth, I'm not "rattled," and I'm not angry. I'm honestly "boggled." How you fail to appreciate the strength of my arguments amazes me, except now I understand you're closed-minded. And you're closed-minded on the basis that "everybody else sees it this way."

Leaving the AoD aside, to claim that the Great Tribulation lasts 2500+ years and that the shortening of it to save Israel from extinction, is a viewpoint I will never accept. You have held this position for years, yet I don't remember calling you non objective, irritated etc, for not dropping it to embrace mine.

You called my view a "joke." That's an obvious insult, whether you admit it or not. I've never said the Great Tribulation lasts 2500 years. I've only said that the Jewish Diaspora began after the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities. The NT Jewish Diaspora began in the NT era.

I've said that a general period of *trouble* began with Antiochus 4, and continuing on after the Maccabean period. The "Great Tribulation" itself began, I believe, in 70 AD, and not before that.

Michael rose up after the demise of Antiochus 4, because he knew Israel's future was at stake. In fact Israel never recovered their Kingdom. And when Jesus got there, he refused to be their King (at that time).

Then, after 70 AD, Israel lost their State entirely. That was how Luke 21 defined the Great Tribulation. That you think this is a "joke" boggles my mind, because that's exactly what the account says!

For a diligent scholar, it beats imagination that you ignored Luke 17 and built your whole case on ch. 21 alone. It is, therefore, wrong to ignore the eschatological connotation of everything else that Jesus said and narrow it to 70 AD!

I certainly do not ignore the eschatological element of the Olivet Discourse. I just place the *main focus* on the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The same thing can be said of the book of Ezekiel. He focused on the Babylonian Captivity. But this doesn't mean there is no eschatological element in the book.

Randy, you may call me whatever you like, I am just satisfied my with own understanding of Christ' message to Israel and the church on the Olivet discourse. I have carefully considered your argument (a) the Romans as the AoD (b) the GT lasting 2500+ years (c) shortening it meaning to save Israel from extinction. But on each of these points, I am unable to accept any as the true representation of what Jesus plainly said.

You need to get my views a little more precise. The Great Tribulation began in 70 AD. The Trouble began after Antiochus 4. But you can believe what you like. It's a free environment here.

At the risk of being repetitive, the destruction of the temple is just ONE of many events that will come to pass before the Lord returns. From Christ' perspective, it is more valuable to warn and prepare the disciples and the wider church of the events that will be a pitfall so they would recognise them and persevere to the end. It makes zero sense to me that Jesus spent so much time to reiterate the destruction of the temple. Saving and preserving souls for eternity always trumps with Jesus in my thinking.

Well, there is the whole problem. I think that the warning about the 70 AD event was designed to show how the Church is to prepare for the eschatological Kingdom. In fact, Jesus' entire message was about the nearness of the Kingdom. But I think you've missed that argument.

[randyk]

Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”

All 3 synoptic gospel accounts have the Disciples ask Jesus about 1) the destruction of the temple , and 2) the 2nd Coming. They wanted to know how one relates to the other? And Jesus answers, in the following verses that 1) the temple will fall in "this generation," and 2) the 2nd Coming will be at the end of the age, following the fall of the temple in that generation.

4 Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many. 6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of birth pains.
9 “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13 but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

These "beginning of birth pains" were not endtimes signs, but signs the Disciples were to experience in their own generation. It is the Disciples who would...
1) Hear false claims of an imminent Messianic Kingdom,
2) Hear of wars and rumors of wars,
3) Experience famines and earthquakes,
4) See the Abomination of Desolation, referenced in Dan 9.27.

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.

The Abomination of Desolation was a warning to the Disciples, in their generation, to pursue an escape when that event takes place. Luke 21 describes it as an encirclement of Jerusalem by Roman armies. Luke 21 also explains that following this event, likely describing the fall of the temple, a period of great distress would descend upon the Jewish People, lasting throughout the NT era until the end of the age.

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.

The Disciples are warned, once again, about those who proclaim an immediate appearance of the Kingdom. They are told that the 2nd Coming will not be something to be desired by a sinful Jewish People, but would rather be universal judgment against the Jewish People. The Jews, ignoring their sinful condition, thought Messiah would save them from either the wilderness experience, the diaspora, or within their holy city, in the inner rooms perhaps of the temple. But this would amount to "Jewish punishment," according to Luke's version of this Discourse.

29 “Immediately after the distress of those days
“‘the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’
30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

The Disciples are not told they will actually see the 2nd Coming. But they are told it will be at the end of the age, involving universal judgment, as well as the restoration of Israel.

32 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

The Disciples themselves were to witness things in their generation that are the "beginning of birth pains." Obviously, the Great Distress following the fall of the temple would fall outside of the experience of the Disciples, since it extends to the end of the age.

36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.
42 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.

The Disciples were themselves to prepare for the 2nd Coming, but not as by preparing for a certain date. It was by living a righteous life all of the time. In a nutshell, Jesus was telling his Disciples that what they would see in their generation would actually have the character of the 2nd Coming, but would actually involve an age-long Jewish punishment. The fall of the temple would represent a judgment of God's Kingdom, as it drew near to Israel.

[Trivalee]

Thanks Trivalee. Yes, most thinking people do see this agreement between the Anti-Christ leader of the One World Govt and the leaders of the Christian nation of Beulah; as a 7 year treaty of peaceful relations. I believe it will be the total destruction of Gog and his army that will motivate the AC to negotiate this treaty.

I have posted a thread on this forum; Christians will occupy the holy Land. This is what is prophesied and God will, at last, have a people in His Land who are His witnesses and His Light to the nations. Here is a scripture that is very informative, note how the prophets always keep Israel and Judah separate.

Ezekiel 11:15-20 The whole people of Israel [the 10 tribes] to whom Judah [the Jews] have said: The Land is now ours to possess. The Lord says: When I sent Israel far away around the world, for a while I was their protector and blessed them wherever they lived. I shall gather My people from their dispersion and give the Land of Israel to them. I will remove their hearts of stone and put a new spirit in them. They will be My people and I will be their God.
hearts of stone....Ezekiel 37:14, Ezekiel 39:25-29, Jeremiah 31:31-34

This prophecy says how the Jews believe the holy Land is their possession. But the Lord will give it to His righteous faithful Christian people, the peoples who have been blessed with prosperity and strength. They will be joined by born again Christians from every race, nation and language. Isaiah 56:1-8, Revelation 5:9-10

I agree that the faithful of God shall inherit the holy land. But what I believe requires your rethink is when this will occur? My view is that it will occur after Jesus returns, not before.
Think about it, I've not seen anything in scripture that requires Christians around the world to up stick and move to Jerusalem BEFORE Jesus returns. As a matter of fact, those in Jerusalem will be fleeing from the Antichrist into the desert at that time.

What do you reckon?

[Keraz]

I agree that the faithful of God shall inherit the holy land. But what I believe requires your rethink is when this will occur? My view is that it will occur after Jesus returns, not before.
Think about it, I've not seen anything in scripture that requires Christians around the world to up stick and move to Jerusalem BEFORE Jesus returns. As a matter of fact, those in Jerusalem will be fleeing from the Antichrist into the desert at that time.

What do you reckon?

I an absolutely convinced that the gathering and settling into all of the holy Land of all the faithful Christians is before the Return of Jesus. It is them that John sees in Revelation 7:9, the ones who stood firm in their faith during the terrible Day of the Lord's wrath, the just happened Sixth Seal event. Revelation 7:14
There is plenty of prophecy that confirms this, as long as people do not just think; all that is just for the Jews. This bad mistake is made by those who fail to realize that since Jesus came, all the Promises of God to His people, now solely apply to born again Christians. Galatians 3:26-29, 2 Corinthians 1:20-22

Soon after the Sixth Seal has cleared and cleansed all the holy Land, Deuteronomy 32:34-43, the Lord will motivate His people, now Christians from every race, nation and language, to travel to a live in the new nation of Beulah. Isaiah 62:1-5
Ezekiel 36:8-12 You; Land of Israel: put forth your branches and bear fruit, for the homecoming of My people is near. The towns will again be inhabited and the ruined places rebuilt, more prosperous and populous than in ancient times.
This great Second Exodus of the Lord’s people will then take place. There are many prophecies about it: Ezekiel 34:11-31…I will search for My sheep and gather them to the Land of Israel, from wherever they were scattered on My Day of wrath…. they will be the flock I feed and I will be their God.

Isaiah 66:18b-19 I am coming to gather peoples of every tongue, they will come to see My glory. I shall put a sign on them and some I will send out to the nations who have never heard of Me. They will proclaim My Gospel to all peoples.
“I shall put a sign on them and will send some out to the nations”, some of them; must be the 144,000, as described in Revelation 7:3-8 & 14:1-7, Isaiah 49:6
Luke 10:1-12 is a precursor of these missionaries, who will “proclaim My Gospel” to ALL the world. This is the Gospel of the coming Kingdom of God – the coming Millennium reign of Jesus. This makes these verses irrefutable proof that the second Exodus of all the Lord’s holy people, must happen some years before the Return of Jesus.

[Trivalee]

I an absolutely convinced that the gathering and settling into all of the holy Land of all the faithful Christians is before the Return of Jesus. It is them that John sees in Revelation 7:9, the ones who stood firm in their faith during the terrible Day of the Lord's wrath, the just happened Sixth Seal event. Revelation 7:14
There is plenty of prophecy that confirms this, as long as people do not just think; all that is just for the Jews. This bad mistake is made by those who fail to realize that since Jesus came, all the Promises of God to His people, now solely apply to born again Christians. Galatians 3:26-29, 2 Corinthians 1:20-22

Soon after the Sixth Seal has cleared and cleansed all the holy Land, Deuteronomy 32:34-43, the Lord will motivate His people, now Christians from every race, nation and language, to travel to a live in the new nation of Beulah. Isaiah 62:1-5
Ezekiel 36:8-12 You; Land of Israel: put forth your branches and bear fruit, for the homecoming of My people is near. The towns will again be inhabited and the ruined places rebuilt, more prosperous and populous than in ancient times.
This great Second Exodus of the Lord’s people will then take place. There are many prophecies about it: Ezekiel 34:11-31…I will search for My sheep and gather them to the Land of Israel, from wherever they were scattered on My Day of wrath…. they will be the flock I feed and I will be their God.

Isaiah 66:18b-19 I am coming to gather peoples of every tongue, they will come to see My glory. I shall put a sign on them and some I will send out to the nations who have never heard of Me. They will proclaim My Gospel to all peoples.
“I shall put a sign on them and will send some out to the nations”, some of them; must be the 144,000, as described in Revelation 7:3-8 & 14:1-7, Isaiah 49:6
Luke 10:1-12 is a precursor of these missionaries, who will “proclaim My Gospel” to ALL the world. This is the Gospel of the coming Kingdom of God – the coming Millennium reign of Jesus. This makes these verses irrefutable proof that the second Exodus of all the Lord’s holy people, must happen some years before the Return of Jesus.

Rev 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

What stands out from the text above which you cited is this:

These faithful believers are said to stand BEFORE the throne of God (God the Father) and the Lamb (Jesus).

According to you, this happens before Jesus has returned, so explain how these believers (in their physical bodies) get to stand before God and Jesus who at that time, are still in heaven?

[Trivalee]

No, of course I'm not suggesting you have to agree with me! I'm only talking about your emphasis that my position is untenable. Often, I disagree with certain positions, but admit they are tenable. And then I give the reasons why I disagree. In this case you just treat what I see as a very reasonable position as untenable. Why? I don't think you've explained why my positions are unreasonable. I already know why you disagree with my positions.

My beloved brother, our understanding of the OD is as different as night and day. Naturally, there are some topics I disagree with but still acknowledge the opposing argument as tenable. But this is not a general rule and your view on the discourse just happens to be one of the few I believe has nothing in between. The narrative cannot be anything else but Christ' Second coming. With this conviction, I don't see how the AoD, the GT, etc. could have been fulfilled in 70 AD.

Call me intransigent on this, it is a label I will gladly take to bed and still sleep soundly

I think I called *my own comments* as "abrasive." Your comments were insulting, because you treat my views as irrational. Don't you understand that there is a reason for my views? Then why do you treat them as a "joke?" Do you really mean to base your positions on the current popular views? If so, you have little depth in your study of the subject. I think you're capable of stepping outside of a B quality discussion, to consider more in depth arguments.

I used the word *joke* in one of my posts and on reflection, I accept it was in bad taste. I know the diligence you put in your thoughts, so please accept my apologies

No, I've always been a bit of a "hot-head," with an ability to change gears pretty easily. It just takes a few minutes.... But for what it's worth, I'm not "rattled," and I'm not angry. I'm honestly "boggled." How you fail to appreciate the strength of my arguments amazes me, except now I understand you're closed-minded. And you're closed-minded on the basis that "everybody else sees it this way."

To my shame, I am closed-minded on topics I'm convinced to be an inappropriate interpretation of a given text. Guilty as charged.

You called my view a "joke." That's an obvious insult, whether you admit it or not. I've never said the Great Tribulation lasts 2500 years. I've only said that the Jewish Diaspora began after the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities. The NT Jewish Diaspora began in the NT era.

I've said that a general period of *trouble* began with Antiochus 4, and continuing on after the Maccabean period. The "Great Tribulation" itself began, I believe, in 70 AD, and not before that.

Michael rose up after the demise of Antiochus 4, because he knew Israel's future was at stake. In fact Israel never recovered their Kingdom. And when Jesus got there, he refused to be their King (at that time).

Then, after 70 AD, Israel lost their State entirely. That was how Luke 21 defined the Great Tribulation. That you think this is a "joke" boggles my mind, because that's exactly what the account says!

OK, whether the Tribulation started during Antiochus 4's era or 70 AD, we are still looking at 2000+ years. Once again, I respectfully disagree with this interpretation. Am I not entitled to my own understanding of the texts?

I certainly do not ignore the eschatological element of the Olivet Discourse. I just place the *main focus* on the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The same thing can be said of the book of Ezekiel. He focused on the Babylonian Captivity. But this doesn't mean there is no eschatological element in the book.

Here is the difference in our interpretation of the discourse. You believe its central theme is the judgment and destruction of the temple, but I see it as Christ' Second coming with everything else that should occur before that as merely peripheral.

You need to get my views a little more precise. The Great Tribulation began in 70 AD. The Trouble began after Antiochus 4. But you can believe what you like. It's a free environment here.

According to Jesus, when the Jews see the AoD they should flee because it will precede the Tribulation. So the troubles during Antiochus time has no relevance on the AoD Jesus spoke about. I see the confusion in your explanation of when the GT started because you have previously argued that it dates back to A4E. You're also entitled to revise it to 70 AD -- but whichever you want it to be, I still don't see any of the timelines as the starting of the AoD.

Well, there is the whole problem. I think that the warning about the 70 AD event was designed to show how the Church is to prepare for the eschatological Kingdom. In fact, Jesus' entire message was about the nearness of the Kingdom. But I think you've missed that argument.

I will say the same. You missed Jesus Christ' argument.

[Keraz]

Rev 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

What stands out from the text above which you cited is this:

These faithful believers are said to stand BEFORE the throne of God (God the Father) and the Lamb (Jesus).

According to you, this happens before Jesus has returned, so explain how these believers (in their physical bodies) get to stand before God and Jesus who at that time, are still in heaven?

As this verse does not mention the location, any belief as to where it takes place, from just verse 7, is purely an assumption.
However, from the context we see that chapter is telling about earthly events, the first 3 verses set the scene. The whole Book of Revelation is to tell us about God's plans for His people on earth.
How can we be sure that standing before the Throne does not mean that this vast multitude is in heaven?

1/ The Greek word translated 'before' - enopion; literally means in the sight of and is used several times about humans on earth, who are before or in the sight of the Lord. 1 Tim 2:14, Romans 14:22, Galatians 1:20, Acts 7:56

2/ Ezekiel 1:1, was standing by the river Kebar, when he saw the entire heavenly host in the Throne room of God.

3/ The Israelites in the desert came before the Lord, Exodus 16:9. They did not go to heaven then.

4/ When the Son of man comes in all His glory, He will sit on His glorious Throne, with all the nations gathered before Him..... Matthew 25:31-32 All the nations don't go to heaven!

5/ Revelation 14:1 plainly says that Jesus in on Mt Zion when He selects the 144,000 out of all the faithful Christians gathered in Jerusalem.

6/ Heaven, God's dwelling place, is a Spiritual concept, in another dimension to our physical existence. It is, therefore, anywhere and everywhere to us.

7/ Last but not least, are the many prophesies that tell us how we Christians will be gathered and settled into all of the holy Land. WE are the people referred to in Ezekiel 38:8b That is our destiny and our great privilege, to be the people God always wanted there, but has never had; His witnesses and His Light to the nations.

[randyk]

My beloved brother, our understanding of the OD is as different as night and day. Naturally, there are some topics I disagree with but still acknowledge the opposing argument as tenable. But this is not a general rule and your view on the discourse just happens to be one of the few I believe has nothing in between. The narrative cannot be anything else but Christ' Second coming. With this conviction, I don't see how the AoD, the GT, etc. could have been fulfilled in 70 AD.

Call me intransigent on this, it is a label I will gladly take to bed and still sleep soundly

You sleep soundly because you have genuine faith, and not because your views are necessarily correct. I know because I held to your position for most of my Christian life. I would not have changed if I was fully confident of that position. But if you are closed-minded in certain issues, that's your choice.

I used the word *joke* in one of my posts and on reflection, I accept it was in bad taste. I know the diligence you put in your thoughts, so please accept my apologies

I do. I'm no better than you. My interest is that you maintain an open mind. But clearly, on some subjects you're fully satisfied. I find that unfortunate, because I think we always have reason to doubt ourselves.

To my shame, I am closed-minded on topics I'm convinced to be an inappropriate interpretation of a given text. Guilty as charged.

Right. That's not a badge of honor. Nothing wrong in believing my interpretation doesn't fit. But to be closed-minded isn't good. It doesn't allow you to hear the arguments properly.

OK, whether the Tribulation started during Antiochus 4's era or 70 AD, we are still looking at 2000+ years. Once again, I respectfully disagree with this interpretation. Am I not entitled to my own understanding of the texts?

I've never said otherwise. I only want to be properly understood. I only want my reasons for believing as I do to be recognized.

Here is the difference in our interpretation of the discourse. You believe its central theme is the judgment and destruction of the temple, but I see it as Christ' Second coming with everything else that should occur before that as merely peripheral.

Exactly. The Discourse begins with the claim that the temple will be destroyed. The Disciples then ask about it. Everything else is peripheral to this. The 2nd Coming plays a role, but is peripheral to how Israel was to prepare for that 2nd Coming in the context of the temple's destruction.

This wasn't the development of a Prophecy Calendar. Rather, this was exhortation to be watchful and alert against any deceptions to move Christians off of Jesus' path to follow a false Jewish way. The temple's destruction ended the Jewish way. Those who stayed alert, remained righteous through Christ, and were not judged in 70 AD. And this choice had eternal ramifications.

According to Jesus, when the Jews see the AoD they should flee because it will precede the Tribulation. So the troubles during Antiochus time has no relevance on the AoD Jesus spoke about. I see the confusion in your explanation of when the GT started because you have previously argued that it dates back to A4E. You're also entitled to revise it to 70 AD -- but whichever you want it to be, I still don't see any of the timelines as the starting of the AoD.

False! My argument is and has been that *trouble* began with Antiochus 4, at which time Michael arose to preserve Israel. The Great Tribulation actually began in 70 AD, when Jesus said it would begin. Jesus said that after the AoD, which was the destruction of Jerusalem, the Jews would be dispersed until the end of the age, until the end of the "times of the Gentiles." Thus, the Great Tribulation is the *NT Jewish Diaspora!*

This is not the "Tribulation" Jesus exhorted his Disciples to "flee from" in the 1st generation of the Church! No, they were to flee from the 70 AD judgment that was coming upon those who lived according to the Jewish way, which rejected Jesus, and which denied that they were in sin and needed repentance.

I will say the same. You missed Jesus Christ' argument.

[Trivalee]

As this verse does not mention the location, any belief as to where it takes place, from just verse 7, is purely an assumption.
However, from the context we see that chapter is telling about earthly events, the first 3 verses set the scene. The whole Book of Revelation is to tell us about God's plans for His people on earth.
How can we be sure that standing before the Throne does not mean that this vast multitude is in heaven?

1/ The Greek word translated 'before' - enopion; literally means in the sight of and is used several times about humans on earth, who are before or in the sight of the Lord. 1 Tim 2:14, Romans 14:22, Galatians 1:20, Acts 7:56

2/ Ezekiel 1:1, was standing by the river Kebar, when he saw the entire heavenly host in the Throne room of God.

3/ The Israelites in the desert came before the Lord, Exodus 16:9. They did not go to heaven then.

4/ When the Son of man comes in all His glory, He will sit on His glorious Throne, with all the nations gathered before Him..... Matthew 25:31-32 All the nations don't go to heaven!

5/ Revelation 14:1 plainly says that Jesus in on Mt Zion when He selects the 144,000 out of all the faithful Christians gathered in Jerusalem.

6/ Heaven, God's dwelling place, is a Spiritual concept, in another dimension to our physical existence. It is, therefore, anywhere and everywhere to us.

7/ Last but not least, are the many prophesies that tell us how we Christians will be gathered and settled into all of the holy Land. WE are the people referred to in Ezekiel 38:8b That is our destiny and our great privilege, to be the people God always wanted there, but has never had; His witnesses and His Light to the nations.

There is nothing in scripture to suggest that Christians all over the world will suddenly move to Jerusalem BEFORE the Lord returns. Any such assumption is false and a figment of the imagination. The holy land as we know it today will not even contain all the Christians as far as I know.

Secondly, you used Rev 7:9 as proof and I just pointed out why this text isn't literal. Furthermore, it says they are clothed in white robes with palms in their hands. White represents righteousness for sure, but in this case, I believe they are literally wearing whites just like in Rev 19:8. So I don't see Christians literally wearing white in Jerusalem at the time of the Antichrist.

But it's only when Jesus returns will all the faithful (Jew and Gentile) be gathered together in the holy land - note before!

[Trivalee]

You sleep soundly because you have genuine faith, and not because your views are necessarily correct. I know because I held to your position for most of my Christian life. I would not have changed if I was fully confident of that position. But if you are closed-minded in certain issues, that's your choice.

I am not close-minded. It's people who are unable to reach their own conclusion on a topic that invariably sways from opinion to another. Why do I have to change my opinion to what I disagree with just so am not called "close-minded"?

That's not a badge of honor. Nothing wrong in believing my interpretation doesn't fit. But to be closed-minded isn't good. It doesn't allow you to hear the arguments properly.

Help me to understand how I can believe your interpretation to be wrong and yet be open-minded enough to believe it you might be right? I'm confused at the way you use words like closed-mind, refusal to consider other opinions, etc. How can I maintain your interpretation of the discourse as incorrect and still be open-minded to consider it as logical? Will that not be contradictory?

On the flip side, I can also say you are close-minded and dogged in your blatant refusal to consider how wrong your opinion on the subject is. How does that sound?

Exactly. The Discourse begins with the claim that the temple will be destroyed. The Disciples then ask about it. Everything else is peripheral to this. The 2nd Coming plays a role, but is peripheral to how Israel was to prepare for that 2nd Coming in the context of the temple's destruction.

This wasn't the development of a Prophecy Calendar. Rather, this was exhortation to be watchful and alert against any deceptions to move Christians off of Jesus' path to follow a false Jewish way. The temple's destruction ended the Jewish way. Those who stayed alert, remained righteous through Christ, and were not judged in 70 AD. And this choice had eternal ramifications.

It is unfortunate that you chose to sandwich the central issue of the discourse where it is almost unrecognisable in your promotion of the temple's destruction. As a matter of fact, the discourse is primarily about Christ' exhortation to be watchful and alert against any deception to move Christians off of Jesus' path irrespective of the tribulations to come until his 2nd Coming.

The events of 70 AD did not end the Jewish way since the majority of them continue to reject their Messiah. The temple's destruction, the deception of false prophets and false Christ' are merely peripheral to the central theme.

False! My argument is and has been that *trouble* began with Antiochus 4, at which time Michael arose to preserve Israel. The Great Tribulation actually began in 70 AD, when Jesus said it would begin. Jesus said that after the AoD, which was the destruction of Jerusalem, the Jews would be dispersed until the end of the age, until the end of the "times of the Gentiles." Thus, the Great Tribulation is the *NT Jewish Diaspora!*

This is not the "Tribulation" Jesus exhorted his Disciples to "flee from" in the 1st generation of the Church! No, they were to flee from the 70 AD judgment that was coming upon those who lived according to the Jewish way, which rejected Jesus, and which denied that they were in sin and needed repentance.

Michael will arise for Israel during the Great Tribulation which is still FUTURE, not past. Israel has experienced many tumultuous events in their turbulent history. A4E troubles are neither the first nor the last, so I don't know how you singled that particular era out as the time the *trouble* started?

Jesus didn't say the great tribulation would start in 70 AD. In Matt 24:14 Jesus said: "14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."

Notice what is said, when the gospel has been preached in all the world for a witness, then shall the end come. If you believe *the end* here refers to 70 AD, then you must prove how the gospel was preached to all the nations of the world before 70 AD? Also, notice that the gospel must be preached to all the nations BEFORE the following occurs:

a. the Jews flee.
b. the great tribulation begins.
c. the false Christ' and prophets appear with fake signs and wonders?

How you can ignore what is plain and hold onto a snowman and then turn around and accuse me of being close-minded and refusal to consider an incorrect interpretation beats me.

[Deade]

There is nothing in scripture to suggest that Christians all over the world will suddenly move to Jerusalem BEFORE the Lord returns. Any such assumption is false and a figment of the imagination. The holy land as we know it today will not even contain all the Christians as far as I know.

Secondly, you used Rev 7:9 as proof and I just pointed out why this text isn't literal. Furthermore, it says they are clothed in white robes with palms in their hands. White represents righteousness for sure, but in this case, I believe they are literally wearing whites just like in Rev 19:8. So I don't see Christians literally wearing white in Jerusalem at the time of the Antichrist.

But it's only when Jesus returns will all the faithful (Jew and Gentile) be gathered together in the holy land - note before!

Wow! I see you guy are arguing with the preterist in this forum also. I never ceases to amaze me how they can come up with walls of text and scripture to put out their story. I will look forward to posting with some of you.