2nd Coming backdrop

[Trivalee]

Why did God allow many to die at the time of Antiochus? Why were sacrifices stopped for 3 years?
Matt 24:2 is NOT about Antiochus' time obviously.

So there was divine judgement in 587 BC and 168 BC and 70 AD.

Dan 11:31* Forces from him shall appear and profane the temple and fortress, and shall take away the regular burnt offering. And they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate.*
Dan 11:32* He shall seduce with flattery those who violate the covenant, but the people who know their God shall stand firm and take action.*
Dan 11:33* And the wise among the people shall make many understand, though for some days they shall stumble by sword and flame, by captivity and plunder.*
Dan 11:34* When they stumble, they shall receive a little help. And many shall join themselves to them with flattery,*
Dan 11:35* and some of the wise shall stumble, so that they may be refined, purified, and made white, until the time of the end, for it still awaits the appointed time.*

Are you really arguing this isn't about 168 BC?
Are you saying that this is NOT divine judgement against those who violate the covenant?

So every tragedy that has befallen Israel since they left Egypt under Moses is "a divine judgment" then? God is responsible for them all, right? Unless you can provide an explicit pronouncement of judgement for the events of 168 BC, otherwise it is no more than innuendo.

[ForHisglory]

So every tragedy that has befallen Israel since they left Egypt under Moses is "a divine judgment" then? God is responsible for them all, right? Unless you can provide an explicit pronouncement of judgement for the events of 168 BC, otherwise it is no more than innuendo.

I just gave you verses which stated what the people did.
They violated the Covenant.
What did God say He would do if they did that?

[randyk]

I did read what you claimed.
A nonsense for a number of reasons.
1) This was a vision explained to Daniel, not Daniel giving some parallelism - can you provide any prophecy with this form of parallelism?
2) Verse 26 speaks of the 62 weeks, yet you say it parallels verse 27 which clearly speaks of week 70.
3) There is NO inference of week 70 in verse 26.
4) Messiah is NOT mentioned anywhere in verse 27.
5) The Messiah does NOT make a Covenant for one week in verse 27


Huh? More nonsense.
No event is mentioned as a occurring AFTER the 70 weeks.
Did you not read verse 24 - the 70 weeks is the sum total,given after which is the end.
When it mentions the Messiah in verse 25 there is no mention of an event after the 70 weeks.
The 70 weeks are still not fulfilled.

You also fail to deal with the problem that IF it is the Messiah as He in verse 27 at the start of the verse then the pronoun doesn't change throughout that verse.

I didn't ask you to agree with my position. I asked you to "understand" my position. Since you call it "nonsense" you obviously don't yet understand my position. I know it's not nonsense because a significant number of other people agree with me.

[ForHisglory]

I didn't ask you to agree with my position. I asked you to "understand" my position. Since you call it "nonsense" you obviously don't yet understand my position. I know it's not nonsense because a significant number of other people agree with me.

I understand what you are saying your position is, and it is nonsense, which is why I don't get why you cling so much to your position.
NOBODY agrees with you. Rather you have taken bits of what others have said and cobbled together your own position which simply doesn't work.

[randyk]

I understand what you are saying your position is, and it is nonsense, which is why I don't get why you cling so much to your position.
NOBODY agrees with you. Rather you have taken bits of what others have said and cobbled together your own position which simply doesn't work.

Wrong. My positions are held by various church fathers and historic scholars. This has never been about *me.* I put together what I believe are the best set of beliefs about these issues, and I derive my views from both the Scriptures and the commentators. You do me wrong, brother. Let me know what you think I hold to that *nobody* agrees with? In reality it is just the majority of those on this Forum who may disagree with me, or like you call it "nonsense." But I don't consider the quality of your Christianity to be the equal of many others who would afford me proper respect.

[ForHisglory]

Wrong. My positions are held by various church fathers and historic scholars. This has never been about *me.* I put together what I believe are the best set of beliefs about these issues, and I derive my views from both the Scriptures and the commentators. You do me wrong, brother. Let me know what you think I hold to that *nobody* agrees with? In reality it is just the majority of those on this Forum who may disagree with me, or like you call it "nonsense." But I don't consider the quality of your Christianity to be the equal of many others who would afford me proper respect.

You put together a hodge-podge of beliefs from various people which do not work together from scripture.
There is a reason that not one of the people you got ideas from actual held to your view, because that would lead to inconsistency.
By picking and mixing, instead of getting the BEST of the various beliefs, you get a jarring impossible combination which has nothing right. It becomes a nonsense.
NOBODY holds your conflux of ideas. Instead they may hold one or another of them.
The one that I haven't found ANYONE holding is your idea about "this generation".
NOBODY has EVER said it means the whole lifetime of a person. If you could provide someone who taught that, then you could claim to have all your ideas second hand.

I call it nonsense because it is demanded from your eclectic mash-up of ideas, which are divorced from a LOGICAL reading of scripture.

[randyk]

You put together a hodge-podge of beliefs from various people which do not work together from scripture.
There is a reason that not one of the people you got ideas from actual held to your view, because that would lead to inconsistency.
By picking and mixing, instead of getting the BEST of the various beliefs, you get a jarring impossible combination which has nothing right. It becomes a nonsense.
NOBODY holds your conflux of ideas. Instead they may hold one or another of them.
The one that I haven't found ANYONE holding is your idea about "this generation".
NOBODY has EVER said it means the whole lifetime of a person. If you could provide someone who taught that, then you could claim to have all your ideas second hand.

I call it nonsense because it is demanded from your eclectic mash-up of ideas, which are divorced from a LOGICAL reading of scripture.

You are insulting me because you begin with a false premise, that "generation" does not mean a literal generation, ie the lifetime of a person. I can't help you, brother. Everything will indeed appear all jumbled up and contradictory if you begin with a false definition of a word. In reality, my ideas are coherent and definitely fit together, and are based on credible historical sources. Insults don't help your cause.

[Trivalee]

I just gave you verses which stated what the people did.
They violated the Covenant.
What did God say He would do if they did that?

That doesn't equal a prophecied judgment like in the OD.

[Trivalee]

You are insulting me because you begin with a false premise, that "generation" does not mean a literal generation, ie the lifetime of a person. I can't help you, brother. Everything will indeed appear all jumbled up and contradictory if you begin with a false definition of a word. In reality, my ideas are coherent and definitely fit together, and are based on credible historical sources. Insults don't help your cause.

Your entire case will continue to be weak and lack merit given your inability to define it with scripture. Strangely you want us to "believe" a spurious interpretation of the OD based on the "Church Fathers" supposed understanding. None of whom I should add, personally claimed divine revelation and understanding like Paul.

[randyk]

Your entire case will continue to be weak and lack merit given your inability to define it with scripture. Strangely you want us to "believe" a spurious interpretation of the OD based on the "Church Fathers" supposed understanding. None of whom I should add, personally claimed divine revelation and understanding like Paul.

Yes, I would refer you, in my new thread, to some of the quotations I'm relying on. It doesn't effect me one bit that you are disinterested in them. I quote them in case you are interested. Otherwise, you can rely on the Scriptures, and on whatever *you think* are worthy of your time and study.

I have done a more than adequate job of describing my position *with Scripture.* The numerous postings by me on this subject are proof of that. That you fail to see the logic is due to your unwillingness to indulge me on the underlying assumptions I make when proposing my positions.

[Keraz]

The one that I haven't found ANYONE holding is your idea about "this generation".
NOBODY has EVER said it means the whole lifetime of a person. If you could provide someone who taught that, then you could claim to have all your ideas second hand. .

I agree with Randyk on this issue. Jesus was referring to a lifetime in Matthew 24:34... the lifetime of those who see the 'fig tree budding', that is; the Jews becoming a nation again.

There are three possible interpretations of Matt. 24:34 based on the meaning of the Greek word translated “generation”. The first is that it applied to the generation alive when Jesus was speaking. But remember, the context of Matt. 24 was the second coming and the end of the age, neither of which took place within the lifespan of the generation alive at the time.
The Greek word for “generation” can also mean “race” so some people interpret Matt. 24:34 to mean that the Jewish race would not become extinct before the Lord returns. While this has been the case, it certainly doesn’t qualify as much of a sign to say that as long as there are Jewish people living on earth it means the Lord could come back.

The third and most logical interpretation of Matt 24:34 is that the generation being born when the fulfillment of the end times signs begins would still be alive at the Lord’s return. Notice Matt. 24:34 doesn’t say that no subsequent generations would be born, nor does it say that all the signs would be fulfilled before the birth of the next generation. It says the signs will be fulfilled within the lifetimes of those who are born about the time the first sign appears.
For this to be the specific sign the disciples were asking for, there would have to be a Biblical clue that gives us an idea of the time involved, and as it happens, there is a Biblical reference to the length of a person’s life. Psalm 90:10 says the length of our days is 70 years, or 80 if we have the strength. A look at current UN research confirms that 70 years is just about what the world wide average lifespan is today, with the longest lifespans averaging around 80. So there you have it. Ref: Jack Kelley

[ForHisglory]

I agree with Randyk on this issue. Jesus was referring to a lifetime in Matthew 24:34... the lifetime of those who see the 'fig tree budding', that is; the Jews becoming a nation again.

There are three possible interpretations of Matt. 24:34 based on the meaning of the Greek word translated “generation”. The first is that it applied to the generation alive when Jesus was speaking. But remember, the context of Matt. 24 was the second coming and the end of the age, neither of which took place within the lifespan of the generation alive at the time.
The Greek word for “generation” can also mean “race” so some people interpret Matt. 24:34 to mean that the Jewish race would not become extinct before the Lord returns. While this has been the case, it certainly doesn’t qualify as much of a sign to say that as long as there are Jewish people living on earth it means the Lord could come back.

The third and most logical interpretation of Matt 24:34 is that the generation being born when the fulfillment of the end times signs begins would still be alive at the Lord’s return. Notice Matt. 24:34 doesn’t say that no subsequent generations would be born, nor does it say that all the signs would be fulfilled before the birth of the next generation. It says the signs will be fulfilled within the lifetimes of those who are born about the time the first sign appears.
For this to be the specific sign the disciples were asking for, there would have to be a Biblical clue that gives us an idea of the time involved, and as it happens, there is a Biblical reference to the length of a person’s life. Psalm 90:10 says the length of our days is 70 years, or 80 if we have the strength. A look at current UN research confirms that 70 years is just about what the world wide average lifespan is today, with the longest lifespans averaging around 80. So there you have it. Ref: Jack Kelley

Neither Randyk's view nor yours is possible as Jesus said "ALL these things".
This includes EVERYTHING stated within the Olivet Discourse.
Matthew 24:34 says it, Mark 13:30 says it and Luke 21:32 says it.
If it ONLY referred to the events in Jerusalem THEN either you or Randyk could be correct. However it doesn't. It refers to ALL these things which Jesus has been speaking about. There is no qualifier EXCEPT "these things" which means the things He has been speaking about in the Discourse.

Finally the word "generation" does NOT usually have the meaning of lifetime. You take it because it is 70 years since Israel became a nation.
Problem for you is that it is now MORE than 70 years. We are in the 71st year. So next you will hold on until 2028, because you will argue it could in some cases be 80 years. Then you might argue beyond that because the lifespan of a person today is longer.

[ForHisglory]

That doesn't equal a prophecied judgment like in the OD.

Actually it was a prophesy. Further there was a prophecy that there would be an AOD, and then we find an AoD did occur.
Daniel wasn't given just one prophecy about it either, but 2 distinct ones.

[ForHisglory]

You are insulting me because you begin with a false premise, that "generation" does not mean a literal generation, ie the lifetime of a person.

No, I said this is a possible though uncommon meaning. My own view is NOT the common one, so I wouldn't denigrate your view simply because of this.

I can't help you, brother. Everything will indeed appear all jumbled up and contradictory if you begin with a false definition of a word. In reality, my ideas are coherent and definitely fit together, and are based on credible historical sources. Insults don't help your cause.

You are the one starting with an incorrect meaning. What is the KEY issue though is that you start by interpreting EVERYTHING ELSE by this meaning, rather than allowing the words to speak to you. Then going from this you reinterpret what others say according to your own view rather than taking what they say and letting that stand for itself. Then you contort other meanings such that OUTSIDE becomes INSIDE and act as though Jesus and the Disciples did NOT know where the Holy Place was.
All of the Disciples would have said the Holy Place is INSIDE the temple and so would be looking for something to be seen there. They most certainly would NOT have been thinking an army outside Jerusalem which is routed to be the SAME thing.
Your ideas have a coherency, but it is not creditable.

[randyk]

No, I said this is a possible though uncommon meaning. My own view is NOT the common one, so I wouldn't denigrate your view simply because of this.


You are the one starting with an incorrect meaning. What is the KEY issue though is that you start by interpreting EVERYTHING ELSE by this meaning, rather than allowing the words to speak to you. Then going from this you reinterpret what others say according to your own view rather than taking what they say and letting that stand for itself. Then you contort other meanings such that OUTSIDE becomes INSIDE and act as though Jesus and the Disciples did NOT know where the Holy Place was.
All of the Disciples would have said the Holy Place is INSIDE the temple and so would be looking for something to be seen there. They most certainly would NOT have been thinking an army outside Jerusalem which is routed to be the SAME thing.
Your ideas have a coherency, but it is not creditable.

At least you try to be diplomatic, and I will give you that. This Discourse never came easy for me, and so it never was a matter of just letting the words "speak to me." The Scriptures, as you well know, require considerable study to get a background understanding of what the Law of Moses was all about, and what the history of Israel was all about, as well as what God's over all plan through the ages has been. Not an easy task, but well worth studying. I'm grieved that some here feel that the Church Fathers are not worth reading, simply because they are not Scriptures. I wonder, then, why they read history books at all, since neither are they Scriptures!

But I know you study, and explore thoroughly your own positions. And I know I don't well communicate my own positions. But I hope you keep an open mind, as I try to better explain things that it's obvious you haven't fully understood I was saying?

My view of "generation" is not, I feel, "uncommon" at all. I do accept, as well, your notion that generations change perhaps every 20 years when children are born. That is the "next generation," but certainly part of the parents' generation, because they live in the same time frame as their parents until their parents die. But why argue something ad nauseum?

The "in is out" subject has also been pretty thoroughly dealt with. And I do understand why you have difficulties with it. I don't agree, but I do sympathize with your unwillingness to give me a pass on the subject. I just think I should do a better job explaining it. Maybe I don't even have all of the pieces yet?

What I do insist on, however, is that the AoD is synonymous, in *some way,* with the encirclement of Jerusalem by Roman troops. I've tried to come up with the best explanation I can, to explain what must've been in the minds of Luke, Matthew, and Mark. Clearly, they saw the AoD of Dan 9 as synonymous with the AoD of the Olivet Discourse, entailing the destruction of the city and the sanctuary. You don't agree, and that's okay. You seem to need every thing to line up perfectly before you accept something. I don't.

As I've told you before, brother, you can fit a puzzle together perfectly, and yet the picture doesn't match. This doesn't mean you've solved the puzzle!

On the other hand, you can keep the picture intact and have a few missing pieces of the puzzle. This works, and is how I'm operating. I don't have to have the puzzle completed to understand what the picture indicates!

Since you like quotes from the Church Fathers, may I refer you to my new post on the subject? I had you in mind when I did this. Have a nice day!