2nd Coming backdrop

[ForHisglory]

Men like Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Victorinus all wanted to see Daniel's 70th Week, the Abomination of Desolation, and the Great Tribulation as something future and fulfilled in the time of Antichrist. And yet Antichrist is not mentioned in any of these.

So they simply wanted to see that?
Don't you think they would be happier if that was past?
They did not see that though Irenaeus lived closer to that time than later ECFs.
Irenaeus also was NOT taught that it was past either.
IOW it was ONLY as people became separated by place and time that the AoD was put into the past.

The 70th Week of Daniel is the 1st Coming of Christ, the AoD is the Roman destruction of the temple in 70 AD, and the Great Tribulation is the Jewish Diaspora of the NT age.

Nope,. none of these is correct.
The GT is stated clearly in Rev 7 and it is affecting ALL tribes peoples and nations.
The GD is what affected the Jews through their Diaspora.

The 2nd Coming of Christ is used by Jesus as a backdrop to the events he predicted would take place in *his generation.* He was specifically warning his Disciples and Apostles about what would happen *in their own time and experience.* He was telling them of the judgment to befall *their own generation* because of their wickedness in rejecting Christ and persecuting them.

So Jesus made it clear that just as the 2nd Coming would bring judgment against the pagan world so his 1st Coming would bring judgment to Israel in his own time. This is the pattern of history in the NT age, a time of historical judgment, to be completed only at the 2nd Coming, following world judgment. Nothing could be clearer to me! Jesus used the 2nd Coming as a backdrop for his prediction of imminent judgment in his own generation!

Again nope, the time of the fulfillment of the age as they KNEW Jesus was the Messiah is what they were looking for.
The backdrop was the present struggle and the destruction of the temple, but the focus was on living for Him.

[randyk]

So they simply wanted to see that?
Don't you think they would be happier if that was past?
They did not see that though Irenaeus lived closer to that time than later ECFs.
Irenaeus also was NOT taught that it was past either.
IOW it was ONLY as people became separated by place and time that the AoD was put into the past.


Nope,. none of these is correct.
The GT is stated clearly in Rev 7 and it is affecting ALL tribes peoples and nations.
The GD is what affected the Jews through their Diaspora.


Again nope, the time of the fulfillment of the age as they KNEW Jesus was the Messiah is what they were looking for.
The backdrop was the present struggle and the destruction of the temple, but the focus was on living for Him.

No, the major prophecy was the destruction of the temple itself. I don't know why you shift things to the 2nd Coming? That was an afterthought, introduced by the Disciples.

Jesus never tried to pinpoint the date of his 2nd Coming, which is synonymous with the entry of the Kingdom. On the other hand, he was pointing out that judgment was at hand, since the time of his 1st Coming. This would be an ongoing revelation of his 1st Coming, to be an age of expecting judgment, because the 2nd Coming would bring judgment to the whole world. And judgment would begin with Israel.

Thus, the more immediate need to prepare for judgment in Israel was the real priority for Jesus' Disciples, and Jesus was warning them about it, using the backdrop of the 2nd Coming to show that the entire nature of the age was characterized by the threat of an approaching eschatological judgment. Thus, the 2nd Coming was a backdrop to the prophecy of the temple's destruction, and not the opposite.

Again, your view of the Great Tribulation and the Great Distress as two separate events is wrong and unjustified. The various versions of the Olivet Discourse were the same, using slightly different words. "Great Distress" means "Great Tribulation!" Both are more easily understood by Luke's version that the Great Tribulation was the Jewish dislocation in the NT age--the Jewish Diaspora of the NT age. It was *not* an event of short duration, but rather, a long extended period of Jewish suffering beginning in the time the Romans desolated Jerusalem.

The impact of the Great Tribulation upon Jewish Christians is unmistakable, and so, this period of Distress was explained by Jesus to affect both Jewish unbelievers and Jewish believers. And the idea of persecuting Christians therefore also speaks to Christians in other countries. We can learn, as Christians, from the Olivet Discourse, which was primarily addressed to Jews!

Again, Victorinus, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus were respected Church Fathers who held a *minority position* that the AoD was the future Antichrist. I believe that most of the Church Fathers held that the AoD was the Roman desolation of Jerusalem and the temple in the Early Church.

[ForHisglory]

No, the major prophecy was the destruction of the temple itself. I don't know why you shift things to the 2nd Coming? That was an afterthought, introduced by the Disciples.

Nope the MAJOR prophecy was His Second Coming, which was also the fulfillment of scripture and the Coming of the Kingdom.
The temple is a footnote. It is a launch point which shows the CHANGE from the OT to the NT which lasts UNTIL He returns.
I understand why you pay attention to it, but YOU give far more attention to it than the gospel writers. Matthew doesn't even note it in the OD. He has dealt with it in Matt 23.

Jesus never tried to pinpoint the date of his 2nd Coming, which is synonymous with the entry of the Kingdom. On the other hand, he was pointing out that judgment was at hand, since the time of his 1st Coming. This would be an ongoing revelation of his 1st Coming, to be an age of expecting judgment, because the 2nd Coming would bring judgment to the whole world. And judgment would begin with Israel.

Actually He does give a LOT of information as to when it would come and what signs where NOT His coming and which were.
Also NO He did not say when He comes (in the OD) would be a time of judgement. Rather He says AFTER He comes will be a time of judgment.

Again, your view of the Great Tribulation and the Great Distress as two separate events is wrong and unjustified. The various versions of the Olivet Discourse were the same, using slightly different words. "Great Distress" means "Great Tribulation!" Both are more easily understood by Luke's version that the Great Tribulation was the Jewish dislocation in the NT age--the Jewish Diaspora of the NT age. It was *not* an event of short duration, but rather, a long extended period of Jewish suffering beginning in the time the Romans desolated Jerusalem.

Great Distress does NOT mean Great Tribulation. Some class them as synonyms, but this is because one may be caused by the other.
Luke DID write about the Jewish Diaspora - completely agree.
Matthew did NOT write about the Jewish Diaspora - completely disagree with you.

You read one thing and then put other things into it because you start with a FALSE assumption.
They are CLEARLY NOT the same, as has been highlighted to you repeatedly, and yet which you continue to gloss over, retreating into ECFs which don't even agree with you.

The impact of the Great Tribulation upon Jewish Christians is unmistakable, and so, this period of Distress was explained by Jesus to affect both Jewish unbelievers and Jewish believers. And the idea of persecuting Christians therefore also speaks to Christians in other countries. We can learn, as Christians, from the Olivet Discourse, which was primarily addressed to Jews!

How many more times will you state this rubbish.
The idea in Luke is of Jewish persecution - this does NOT then mean persecution of Gentile believers.
The idea in Matthew though is different and IS of persecution of Believers, but NOT of Jews, beyond the start of the GT.

Again, Victorinus, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus were respected Church Fathers who held a *minority position* that the AoD was the future Antichrist. I believe that most of the Church Fathers held that the AoD was the Roman desolation of Jerusalem and the temple in the Early Church.

You have given ZERO church Fathers that held that the AoD was the Roman desolation.
Rather you have LATER ECFs, who claim the 70 weeks was fulfilled, which then begs HOW was the AoD fulfilled, to which the ECFs have varying answers or no answer at all.

[randyk]

Nope the MAJOR prophecy was His Second Coming, which was also the fulfillment of scripture and the Coming of the Kingdom.
The temple is a footnote. It is a launch point which shows the CHANGE from the OT to the NT which lasts UNTIL He returns.
I understand why you pay attention to it, but YOU give far more attention to it than the gospel writers. Matthew doesn't even note it in the OD. He has dealt with it in Matt 23.

You don't begin a major Discourse with the "footnote!" The major focus of the Discourse is the "launching point," which was the declaration that the temple would be desolated. And the connection with the later reference to the "abomination of desolation" should be obvious to you! The desolation of the temple was the "abomination of desolation!"

This was a *major prophecy!* It was *not* a footnote. It rattled the Disciples, and caused them to ask for more details. The Olivet Discourse immediately provided details that the Disciples were inquiring about. False Messiahs, false prophets, earthquakes, famines, wars, rumors of wars, persecution of believers, lost love in the society, and ultimately the desolation of the temple.

These things presaged the 2nd Coming, which is also what the Disciples asked about. They 1st asked about when the temple would be destroyed. But they also wanted to know how this event fit in with the 2nd Coming, which should've been about the salvation of Israel, about the coming of the Kingdom, about the end of the age of Jewish suffering.

To make this all about, or primarily about, the 2nd Coming is only half the story, and not even the Main Story. The Main Story was the prediction of the fall of the temple, which was *huge,* because it presaged the end of worship under the Mosaic Law! That was *huge!* The destruction of the temple was the destruction of the very symbol of the Law of Moses! The Law completely surrounded worship at the temple! And you make this a "footnote?"

Actually He does give a LOT of information as to when it would come and what signs where NOT His coming and which were.
Also NO He did not say when He comes (in the OD) would be a time of judgement. Rather He says AFTER He comes will be a time of judgment.

Great Distress does NOT mean Great Tribulation. Some class them as synonyms, but this is because one may be caused by the other.
Luke DID write about the Jewish Diaspora - completely agree.
Matthew did NOT write about the Jewish Diaspora - completely disagree with you.

False. Great Tribulation means Great Distress. They are the same thing. They are stated in the same place in the Discourse in all accounts. They all refer to the same thing, which is the Distress of the Jews in the present age, particularly after the fall of Jerusalem. Israel would be dispersed among the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. How you can see this any other way is strange to me. But I do know a lot of people believe as you do.

You read one thing and then put other things into it because you start with a FALSE assumption.
They are CLEARLY NOT the same, as has been highlighted to you repeatedly, and yet which you continue to gloss over, retreating into ECFs which don't even agree with you.


How many more times will you state this rubbish.
The idea in Luke is of Jewish persecution - this does NOT then mean persecution of Gentile believers.
The idea in Matthew though is different and IS of persecution of Believers, but NOT of Jews, beyond the start of the GT.

Apparently you are unable to win the argument by compliments?
Brother, you are so wrong! The idea in all accounts of the Olivet Discourse is of Jewish tribulation. Unbelieving Jews would be judged and thrown into an age-long Diaspora--just like the Babylonian Captivity--only worse! And Jewish believers would be forced to suffer along with their Jewish compatriots, even though they are believers. They don't deserve the Diaspora, and yet are forced into it by their belonging to a fallen nation. And at the same time Jesus said that Jewish believers would suffer even further by suffering persecution from their unbelieving Jewish brethren, and also from Gentile pagans! Nothing could be clearer to me, and it certainly isn't rubbish!

You have given ZERO church Fathers that held that the AoD was the Roman desolation.
Rather you have LATER ECFs, who claim the 70 weeks was fulfilled, which then begs HOW was the AoD fulfilled, to which the ECFs have varying answers or no answer at all.

No, the quotes I gave you show the 70th Week ending with the death of Christ, and with the ensuing Roman destruction of Jerusalem. I think perhaps you are unable to read between the lines, or even what is plainly said if it doesn't meet *your requirements* for proof?

[ForHisglory]

You don't begin a major Discourse with the "footnote!" The major focus of the Discourse is the "launching point," which was the declaration that the temple would be desolated. And the connection with the later reference to the "abomination of desolation" should be obvious to you! The desolation of the temple was the "abomination of desolation!"

Actually the footnote is the introduction.
He starts with what is going to happen next and then leads on through the age to the time of His return, highlighting what is false signs and leading to the things whihc need to be done BEFORE the end.
Then He speaks about His return.

This was a *major prophecy!* It was *not* a footnote. It rattled the Disciples, and caused them to ask for more details. The Olivet Discourse immediately provided details that the Disciples were inquiring about. False Messiahs, false prophets, earthquakes, famines, wars, rumors of wars, persecution of believers, lost love in the society, and ultimately the desolation of the temple.

Really, were they so rattled? Did they write about it much in any of the letters or was it discussed or preached about?
Not a single further statement within the ENTIRE NT.
Obviously very major (note the heavy sarcasm.)

These things presaged the 2nd Coming, which is also what the Disciples asked about. They 1st asked about when the temple would be destroyed. But they also wanted to know how this event fit in with the 2nd Coming, which should've been about the salvation of Israel, about the coming of the Kingdom, about the end of the age of Jewish suffering.

Presaged - how long before? 70 AD was almost 2,000 years ago.

To make this all about, or primarily about, the 2nd Coming is only half the story, and not even the Main Story. The Main Story was the prediction of the fall of the temple, which was *huge,* because he presaged the end of worship under the Mosaic Law! That was *huge!* The destruction of the temple was the destruction of the very symbol of the Law of Moses! The Law completely surrounded worship at the temple! And you make this a "footnote?"

No, it is clearly (for anyone who isn't pre-biased and making assumptions a priori) about this present age leading to His return.
We can take assurance that this will happen because of what He told us HAS happened. So it is a proof for anyone who is unsure.

False. Great Tribulation means Great Distress. They are the same thing. They are stated in the same place in the Discourse in all accounts. They all refer to the same thing, which is the Distress of the Jews in the present age, particularly after the fall of Jerusalem. Israel would be dispersed among the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. How you can see this any other way is strange to me. But I do know a lot of people believe as you do.

Nope, not stated in the same place.
Luke 17 doesn't even get put with the rest of the Discourse by Luke.
Matt 24 makes NO mention of the distress of the Jews beyond a FUTURE event happening in Jerusalem. He has no Diaspora mentioned, no trampling by the Gentiles.
Matthew has events happen AFTER the Gospel is preached throughout the whole world, whereas Luke has the destruction happening BEFORE later events.

Apparently you are unable to win the argument by compliments?
Brother, you are so wrong! The idea in all accounts of the Olivet Discourse is of Jewish tribulation. Unbelieving Jews would be judged and thrown into an age-long Diaspora--just like the Babylonian Captivity--only worse! And Jewish believers would be forced to suffer along with their Jewish compatriots, even though they are believers. They don't deserve the Diaspora, and yet are forced into it by their belonging to a fallen nation. And at the same time Jesus said that Jewish believers would suffer even further by suffering persecution from their unbelieving Jewish brethren, and also from Gentile pagans! Nothing could be clearer to me, and it certainly isn't rubbish!

As long as you REFUSE to read what is stated AS it is stated you will continue to be wrong. You have one end of the stick and don't recognise the other end, and barely notice the stick itself.

No, the quotes I gave you show the 70th Week ending with the death of Christ, and with the ensuing Roman destruction of Jerusalem. I think perhaps you are unable to read between the lines, or even what is plainly said if it doesn't meet *your requirements* for proof?

You did give quotes of some who said the 70th week was with the destruction of Jerusalem. And those same people had half the week when Jesus was on the earth, and others say it isn't the 70th week at all.
Yet NOT ONE of ALL the quotes actually equates the Roman army with Abomination.
Instead it requires YOU to read between the lines - IOW make your OWN interpretation of what they say as what they say doesn't actually say what you claim.
I can read between lines as well, but I prefer to stick with what is written NOT what someone SPECULATES may be the meaning.

[DavePeace]

You do not get to decide what the "Doctrine of Man" is and what the "Doctrine of God" is. God gets to decide that, brother. For me, I incline towards what the Scriptures are saying more explicitly to me. I'm not just going to accept *your word* for what the "Doctrine of God" is. This is an extraneous kind of criticism that is absolutely unnecessary in these discussions. We *all* want to believe in "God's doctrines" and not in "Man's doctrines." You should not set yourself up as sole arbiter of what is truly "from God!"

So let's move on to discuss what sounds more explicitly Scriptural, shall we? Jesus refers his Olivet Discourse back to Dan 9 and the AoD in that passage. That is where Jerusalem and the temple get "desolated" in the generation in which Messiah is "cut off." Luke 21 mentions the "encirclement of Jerusalem by foreign armies" in the very same place in the Discourse that Matthew 24 and Mark 13 mention the AoD. All versions mention a "desolation." Matthew and Mark mention specifically the Abomination of "Desolation," which is, like Luke 21, a "desolation."

All of these versions describe the same things because they represent the exact same Discourse. The AoD is not something separate, and the encirclement of Jerusalem by foreign armies is not something separate. They are all referring to the same "desolation" of Jerusalem and the temple, as spoken of in Dan 9. This is not the "Doctrine of Man," brother. What is the "Doctrine of Man" is the incessant accusation and criticism that divides honest brothers who are trying to determine what God's word is actually saying!

Knowing what God says in His Own written Word makes it EASY... to know when men are trying to insert their own doctrines instead! If you don't know that, then you are admitting you don't understand God's Word.


Mark 8:14-21
14 Now the disciples had forgotten to take bread, neither had they in the ship with them more than one loaf.

15 And He charged them, saying, "Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod."

16 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have no bread.

17 And when Jesus knew it, He saith unto them, "Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? perceive ye not yet, neither understand? have ye your heart yet hardened?

18 Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember?

19 When I brake the five loaves among five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up?" They say unto Him, "Twelve."

20 "And when the seven among four thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up?" And they said, "Seven."

21 And He said unto them, "How is it that ye do not understand?"
KJV

[DavePeace]

....
So let's move on to discuss what sounds more explicitly Scriptural, shall we? Jesus refers his Olivet Discourse back to Dan 9 and the AoD in that passage. That is where Jerusalem and the temple get "desolated" in the generation in which Messiah is "cut off." Luke 21 mentions the "encirclement of Jerusalem by foreign armies" in the very same place in the Discourse that Matthew 24 and Mark 13 mention the AoD. All versions mention a "desolation." Matthew and Mark mention specifically the Abomination of "Desolation," which is, like Luke 21, a "desolation."

All of these versions describe the same things because they represent the exact same Discourse. The AoD is not something separate, and the encirclement of Jerusalem by foreign armies is not something separate. They are all referring to the same "desolation" of Jerusalem and the temple, as spoken of in Dan 9. This is not the "Doctrine of Man," brother. What is the "Doctrine of Man" is the incessant accusation and criticism that divides honest brothers who are trying to determine what God's word is actually saying!

Jerusalem getting desolated (destroyed) is NOT in the Book of Daniel involving the "abomination of desolation". THAT... is one of the places where you are serving the leaven doctrines of men instead of keeping to God's Word as written.

Dan 11:31
31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.
KJV

Does that sound like 70 A.D. Jerusalem with that "sanctuary" being polluted with that "abomination" being placed? No, of course not. That is why the 70 A.D. destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans is not... what the "abomination of desolation" is even about from the Book of Daniel! I just gave by that solid Biblical proof... that you are NOT following the Daniel Scripture as written, but instead are following a leaven doctrine of man, trying to insert it, into the Daniel Scripture!

[randyk]

Actually the footnote is the introduction.
He starts with what is going to happen next and then leads on through the age to the time of His return, highlighting what is false signs and leading to the things whihc need to be done BEFORE the end.
Then He speaks about His return.

False, a Discourse does not begin with a "footnote!" Furthermore, the question being asked has to be answered in the Discourse! The question asked was, "When will this destruction of the temple, stone by stone, take place?" For Jesus to ignore this question, and to go on to address, almost exclusively, the 2nd Coming, is beyond ridiculous. And it is patently illogical. You must show how Jesus answered this question?

Really, were they so rattled? Did they write about it much in any of the letters or was it discussed or preached about?
Not a single further statement within the ENTIRE NT.
Obviously very major (note the heavy sarcasm.)

Then this is a classic case of "not being able to see the forest for the trees." Much of the NT Scriptures were written to explain how NT law displaced OT law.

Presaged - how long before? 70 AD was almost 2,000 years ago.

As I said, the predicted fall of Jerusalem and of the temple presaged the entire character of the age, in which OT worship would fail, Israel would be temporarily cast away, and judgments would regularly fall upon men who exhaust God's patience. All the way up until the 2nd Coming these judgments would take place. And the 2nd Coming itself would not just be the salvation of Israel, but also the judgment of men in all nations.

No, it is clearly (for anyone who isn't pre-biased and making assumptions a priori) about this present age leading to His return.
We can take assurance that this will happen because of what He told us HAS happened. So it is a proof for anyone who is unsure.

Nope, not stated in the same place.
Luke 17 doesn't even get put with the rest of the Discourse by Luke.
Matt 24 makes NO mention of the distress of the Jews beyond a FUTURE event happening in Jerusalem. He has no Diaspora mentioned, no trampling by the Gentiles.
Matthew has events happen AFTER the Gospel is preached throughout the whole world, whereas Luke has the destruction happening BEFORE later events.

I've shown you these things in detail before, lining up all of the versions, including Luke 17, showing how they referred to the exact same things. Luke 17 was separated by Luke to specifically deal with an issue that spoke to him, which had to do with the expectation of unbelieving Jews. But that also is part of the rest of the Discourse in Luke 21, which implies that the Jewish people worshiped with a complete lack of awareness!

As long as you REFUSE to read what is stated AS it is stated you will continue to be wrong. You have one end of the stick and don't recognise the other end, and barely notice the stick itself.

On the contrary, my position is built on exactly what is stated, and with a comparison between the different accounts. You have different accounts saying different things! Well, of course they use different words, but they are saying the same things.

You did give quotes of some who said the 70th week was with the destruction of Jerusalem. And those same people had half the week when Jesus was on the earth, and others say it isn't the 70th week at all.
Yet NOT ONE of ALL the quotes actually equates the Roman army with Abomination.
Instead it requires YOU to read between the lines - IOW make your OWN interpretation of what they say as what they say doesn't actually say what you claim.
I can read between lines as well, but I prefer to stick with what is written NOT what someone SPECULATES may be the meaning.

No, it's common sense, brother. If all of them are equating the 70 Weeks with the 1st Coming of Christ, then they are seeing the AoD as fulfilled in the generation of Christ. That's why some of them mentioned that the AoD was Nero, or the 70 AD destruction, or something else in Jesus' generation, following his death. None of these except Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Victorinus saw the 70th Weeks as fulfilled in the generation of Christ. This isn't even "reading between the lines." This is what they say.