Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 130

Thread: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    5,744

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I'll take that bet! I am from generations of Lutherans, and very Protestant in my outlook. However, I read a great history of Christianity by Kenneth Latourette, a Baptist, and his treatment of the Catholics was very tolerant, impressing me greatly. In reading George E. Ladd, on the subject of eschatology, I also discerned an incredible level of honesty and kindness in dealing with the positions others held to.

    I've tried to emulate this tolerant attitude in dealing with Catholics. But I'm hardly accepting of their cultic mentality that "Catholicism is THE Church of Christ." Several of their beliefs are repugnant to me, including Mariolatry, praying for the dead, and image-adoration. And quite frankly, I find that many Catholics live in abject ignorance, and may not even have genuine faith, or a practice of true Christian righteousness.

    I'm not surprised you often fail to understand me, brother, if you look at me this way! However, let me say this. I do believe that God has been in history and controlling the events of history--more than many Christians realize. And that's the concern I wish to bring to you.



    The Catholics view themselves as the historical fulfillment of the Kingdom of God. Protestants, like myself, interpret biblical prophecy in such a way as to expose the Catholic position as false, and even as a "false Christ." At the same time, it can still be called "God's church," since it is organized around the Christian faith, and contains many genuine believers.



    This I reject as a pure assertion. I find, quite to the contrary, that Luke 21 is, in fact, the Olivet Discourse. Are you aware that many, many scholars--in fact, most all, Bible Scholars, believe so? So why should anybody believe you on this?

    The fact Jesus' initial message was stated in the temple area, and later evolved to a discussion, or discourse, on the Mt. of Olives, does not negate the point.



    I think you misunderstand Jesus where he said that "my Kingdom is not of this world." In saying his Kingdom was *of heaven* he was not saying it doesn't or can't align itself with kingdoms on earth! In fact, the entire OT history of Israel is predicated on this fact, that insofar that Israel commits to the Law of God their kingdom remains aligned with God's heavenly Kingdom!

    Jesus said the Kingdom of God would be taken away from the Jewish People. Why would he say that unless the Kingdom of God had been with them?

    And if he said the Kingdom of God would be given to another nation, why would Jesus say this unless the Kingdom of God could, in the NT era, be given to other nations, other than Israel? Clearly, Christian nations have evolved such that God's Kingdom drew near to such nations, giving them the power to order their society along Christian principles, which is exactly what God wants!



    Many prophecies were fulfilled, and many remain to be fulfilled. I wouldn't argue with you on that. What was fulfilled in the past set precedent for future realities, and guides us so as to not repeat the mistakes of the past. Future prophecies set our expectations, and are important in this regard.



    Well, don't equate my view with the Catholic view please, because I'm not either a Catholic or pro-Catholic! I think you've conflating two things here. The "summer" is not to be equated with the "coming of the Son of Man" in my view. Jesus was warning the early Jewish believers that for their nation summer was approaching. But they would not prosper. They would produce leaves, but not fruit. And since they produced only leaves, and not fruit, their tree would die. Their calling to produce a rebirth of their nation would end in a still birth.

    The 2nd Coming was used, by Jesus, to show the Jewish believers what to expect with respect to their fallen nation. Israel would be judged in their own generation, and they would need to separate from their sins, so as to not be judged with them.

    In other words, Jesus used aspects of his 2nd Coming to display important truths about his own generation. The 2nd Coming would bring judgment to the Gentile world. But in the case of his own generation, Jesus would bring judgment to his own people, the Jews.

    Part of the teaching about the 2nd Coming was also about the hope of deliverance for Jewish believers. This had long been the "Jewish hope" in OT prophecies about deliverance from Gentile oppression. But here, Jesus is stating that Israel herself was subject to the same judgment in his own generation.



    I disagree. The 70 AD incident was of monumental importance! It ended Jewish worship under the Law of Moses! It had actually been legally nullified since the cross of Jesus. But the Jewish worship at the temple continued until 70 AD, when the temple was destroyed. That was highly significant in telling the Jewish believers that all connection to OT worship was over!
    Thank you for your reply. We have both set forth our views. Let the interested reader judge. You have strengthened my supposition that you are "Kingdom Now". This statement of yours says it all and is the only one I will comment on.

    And if he said the Kingdom of God would be given to another nation, why would Jesus say this unless the Kingdom of God could, in the NT era, be given to other nations, other than Israel? Clearly, Christian nations have evolved such that God's Kingdom drew near to such nations, giving them the power to order their society along Christian principles, which is exactly what God wants!
    In your first sentence you make "nation" singular. Then, in the next sentence it is given to "nations" plural. Then you add "Christian nations" to the confusion. And in all this God gives His Kingdom to them. But scripture shows nothing of the sort. In dealing with the Kingdom being present scripture alludes to this in respect of Israel ONLY. The Kingdom is offered to them, the King is among them, and His power to cast out demons is proof. When Israel refuse the Kingdom and declare Christ's Kingdom to be energized by Beelzebub, our Lord Jesus withdraws the offer. And the people, or "nation" that He turns to are NOT one that was in existence until resurrection day. It is TAKEN OUT of the nation of Israel and TAKEN OUT of the nations to form an entirely new people. A people with a new birth, a people possessing divine life, a people forgiven their sins, a people made into the House of God and a people made priests and kings of God.

    It is a People never before seen or revealed. Not one of the "nations" remotely resembles it. They are of the flesh, under curse, ungodly and headed for God's wrath. There is no such thing as a Christian nation. There is no such thing as Christian nations. And God's plan is not "to give them the power to order their society along Christian principles." Can a bad tree produce good fruit? Can bitter waters bring forth sweet? Can a pig bring forth a lion? The end of these "Christian nations" as you call them is "as the days of Noah" and "the days of Lot". The Kingdom of God id NOT given to them. It is withdrawn from Israel and waits in heaven to be revealed with Christ's appearing. In the very Chapter we discuss - Luke Chapter 21, verse 31 shows the Kingdom of God FAR AWAY UNTIL the appearing of Christ. "So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand." It is only NIGH when the King is nigh!

    And then, when it is established on earth, what is the portion of the nations? To be "Christian nations". NO! Israel is a nation under Law and the Gentiles are nations "ruled by the rod of iron". Christian principles are ONLY for this age and for Christians. The Christian is commanded to turn the other cheek NOW in this age. In the next age it is, "... Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me... Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:40-41). THESE are the "principles" that govern when our Lord sits on His throne of glory in His Kingdom. And where then are the "Christian principles" among Christian nations NOW? Is Donald Trump to turn the other cheek? Is he to forgo the death sentence for murder? Is he to forgive those who bomb US citizens, or is he to hunt them down mercilessly? Is not his job, far from martyring his nation, to protect his nation with the sword? What Christian principles do you talk about?

    The Church is an EXCLUSIVE BODY which has as its Head, Jesus. The rest of men are in danger of the Lake of Fire. Israel in particular is under heavy chastisement already. There is no mixing of the three. The Church turns its cheek. Israel is under Law. And the nations are steeped in worship of the creature. How could these three ever be run under Christian principles?

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,456

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    Thank you for your reply. We have both set forth our views. Let the interested reader judge. You have strengthened my supposition that you are "Kingdom Now". This statement of yours says it all and is the only one I will comment on.
    No, I am *not* Kingdom Now. I've been preaching against that group for many years now. We could certainly do a thread on it. Kingdom Now is akin to Faith Doctrine, in my view, and believes in "taking the Kingdom by force." I don't believe that at all. I believe "the Kingdom suffers violence, and the violent, ie the wicked, take it by force."

    First I'm Catholic, and now I'm "Kingdom Now." Why don't you just ask first? I know what I am.

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls
    In your first sentence you make "nation" singular. Then, in the next sentence it is given to "nations" plural. Then you add "Christian nations" to the confusion. And in all this God gives His Kingdom to them. But scripture shows nothing of the sort.
    Matt 21.43 Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.


    God took the heavenly Kingdom away from Israel when he destroyed the nation of Israel in 70 AD. He then gave the Kingdom to the Christian empire that developed among the Romans. Later, the Kingdom was given to the Kingdom of the Franks, etc. etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls
    In dealing with the Kingdom being present scripture alludes to this in respect of Israel ONLY. The Kingdom is offered to them, the King is among them, and His power to cast out demons is proof. When Israel refuse the Kingdom and declare Christ's Kingdom to be energized by Beelzebub, our Lord Jesus withdraws the offer. And the people, or "nation" that He turns to are NOT one that was in existence until resurrection day. It is TAKEN OUT of the nation of Israel and TAKEN OUT of the nations to form an entirely new people. A people with a new birth, a people possessing divine life, a people forgiven their sins, a people made into the House of God and a people made priests and kings of God.

    It is a People never before seen or revealed. Not one of the "nations" remotely resembles it. They are of the flesh, under curse, ungodly and headed for God's wrath. There is no such thing as a Christian nation.
    There have, in fact, been many Christian nations. The fact you call nations "not Christian" makes you judgmental, but not truthful.

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls
    There is no such thing as Christian nations. And God's plan is not "to give them the power to order their society along Christian principles." Can a bad tree produce good fruit? Can bitter waters bring forth sweet? Can a pig bring forth a lion? The end of these "Christian nations" as you call them is "as the days of Noah" and "the days of Lot". The Kingdom of God id NOT given to them. It is withdrawn from Israel and waits in heaven to be revealed with Christ's appearing. In the very Chapter we discuss - Luke Chapter 21, verse 31 shows the Kingdom of God FAR AWAY UNTIL the appearing of Christ. "So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand." It is only NIGH when the King is nigh!

    And then, when it is established on earth, what is the portion of the nations? To be "Christian nations". NO! Israel is a nation under Law and the Gentiles are nations "ruled by the rod of iron". Christian principles are ONLY for this age and for Christians. The Christian is commanded to turn the other cheek NOW in this age. In the next age it is, "... Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me... Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:40-41). THESE are the "principles" that govern when our Lord sits on His throne of glory in His Kingdom. And where then are the "Christian principles" among Christian nations NOW? Is Donald Trump to turn the other cheek? Is he to forgo the death sentence for murder? Is he to forgive those who bomb US citizens, or is he to hunt them down mercilessly? Is not his job, far from martyring his nation, to protect his nation with the sword? What Christian principles do you talk about?
    The Christian principles are in Scriptures. Sometimes leaders claim them and live by them. Sometimes they claim them and don't really live by them. Sometimes a people claim to be a Christian nation, and are largely non-Christian. Sometimes nations live largely by Christian principles. It depends where a nation is, as a Christian nation. What stage is it at? Is it responding to the gospel of Christ, and growing into a Christian nation? Or, has it been Christian, but now is in serious moral decline?

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls
    The Church is an EXCLUSIVE BODY which has as its Head, Jesus. The rest of men are in danger of the Lake of Fire. Israel in particular is under heavy chastisement already. There is no mixing of the three. The Church turns its cheek. Israel is under Law. And the nations are steeped in worship of the creature. How could these three ever be run under Christian principles?
    God showed that He can mix with a nation and a people when He began with the nation of Israel. And if He do so with Israel He can also do so with other nations. Clearly, since there have indeed been Christian nations, at various stages of growth or decline, God has indeed mixed His heavenly Kingdom in with the kingdoms of men. What kind of gospel is so frail that it cannot impact a society?

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,456

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    I can agree with all of that. Let me try again to clarify my question.
    Many futurists see some reference to the 70AD destruction of the temple in the Olivet Discourse. So we can therefore agree with you on your comparisons with the previous judgments on Israel and also some change in status of Israel at that point. Our debate is merely one of emphasis because even your view recognises the second coming in much of Matthew 24 and most of Matthew 25. Normally in these discussions it is a simple agree to disagree after a month or so of discussion.

    Why over such a small issue as to the emphasis of the OD, do you feel motivated to keep debating this particular topic more than other topics?
    As I've been trying to explain, I've been burdened with understanding the Olivet Discourse for many, man years. I memorized Matthew 24 back in 72 or 73. I've sort of been obsessed with putting it together because I went through several interpretations early on, as I read one commentary after another. I got mixed up because there were so many opinions out there. Preeminent was Hal Lindsey. It wasn't long before I realized his Pretrib was wrong, and along with it a number of other predictions. Nevertheless, I liked Hal Lindsey and his efforts at interpreting Bible Prophecy in a futurist way. And I liked his Common Market theory of the Antichristian reign. It was wrong, but I think it's somewhat close, in some ways. I believe Antichrist will rule in Europe.

    I then got into Daniel, and began to study secular and Christian history from the perspective of Daniel's prophecy of the Great Image (actually, Nebuchadnezzar's Dream). I went through all of history to see if I could recognize the development of the two Roman legs of this Great Image. Gordon Lindsay's books at suggested this interpretation.

    What I found is something I'm still expressing today, about 45 years later! But up until the last few years there were a few points in the Olivet Discourse that just didn't make sense in all its parts. Suddenly, one day not too long ago I began to see it, as many criticisms came at me on this very forum. And I believe I put together the last few pieces of the puzzle.

    And so I'm excited! You may think me totally wrong, but I'm still excited, because I *believe* I've filled in the missing pieces. It doesn't matter to me that I get criticized. I want the criticism. I'm excited because I no longer see in my critics points that truly refute my views. I still welcome any and all criticisms or refutations.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,858
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    Revelation places outside of the city as a part of Jerusalem

    Revelation 11:8
    8 Their bodies will lie in the public square of the great city—which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt—where also their Lord was crucified.
    Nope.
    What Revelation does NOT do is claim that Jesus was crucified IN the public square of the great city of Jerusalem.
    Rather it is noting the location of Jerusalem as opposed to Jericho or Alexandria or Rome.

    IOW Jesus was crucified AT Jerusalem, but NOT IN Jerusalem.
    So OUTSIDE is NOT part of the city.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,858
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shimatoree66 View Post
    I'm not sure I understand? I think Jesus did say what Luke reported as well as what Matthew reported. Then they each delivered the message as it pertained to their respective audience.
    What you were claiming is that Luke interpreted what Jesus was saying in Luke's own words.
    Clearly this is incorrect.
    Jesus made BOTH statements - that Jerusalem would be surrounded by an army AND that the AoD would be standing in the Holy Place.

    Do you think that Matt 24 and Luke 21 are talking about different events? If so, that is something that I should maybe consider. It seemed plain to me before that they were talking about the same thing, but maybe I jumped to a hasty conclusion. It's easy to get stuck reading something over and over the same way, and I have certainly been guilty of this before. Tomorrow, I will clear my head of presuppositions and give the pertinent chapters another look with fresh eyes.
    For certain Matthew and Luke recorded TWO different SIGNS.
    Luke recorded a SIGN of an army OUTSIDE the city.
    Matthew recorded a SIGN of something INSIDE the Temple (which is INSIDE the city).

    Further Luke's event occurred in 66 AD, whereas anyone who claims Matthew's event happened place it in 70 AD - so at minimum a FOUR year difference.

    Beyond this we also have that Luke's event is BEFORE the city is desolated and that the city is later trampled for the duration of the time of the Gentiles. Matthew however has Jesus returning AFTER the AoD is seen.

    Luke speaks ONLY of distress for the Jews, while Matthew speaks of tribulation for the Christian.

    So though Jerusalem is in focus, the timing of each and the signs and everything else is different.
    What many also fail to do is bring Luke 17 into this.

    Luke 17:22 - 37 is part of the OD, and you can know this from how it matches with what is stated in Matt 24:17 - 18 & 37 - 41

    Yet Luke 17 is clearly connected with the RETURN of Jesus, which then makes the corresponding passage in Matthew also be about the time of His return.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    5,744

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    ...



    Matt 21.43 Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.


    God took the heavenly Kingdom away from Israel when he destroyed the nation of Israel in 70 AD. He then gave the Kingdom to the Christian empire that developed among the Romans. Later, the Kingdom was given to the Kingdom of the Franks, etc. etc.



    There have, in fact, been many Christian nations. The fact you call nations "not Christian" makes you judgmental, but not truthful.



    ...
    OK. Thanks for the exchange. Instead of "you said this" - "I said this", for what it's worth, I'll set forth my understanding of the doctrine of the Kingdom.

    From Adam though Noah men ruled the earth. From Babylon onward, each nation ruled itself and even subdivided the rule from city to city - the situation we had when Abraham entered Canaan and had to rescue Lot. But this rule was earthly, having as its kings "the basest of men" (Dan.4:17). This was supposed to change when God gave Israel Canaan. For the first time there was a nation in place that was supposed to rule by applying the Law given from God. It was supposed to be a "heavenly theocracy". The history of this nation Israel is well documented, and except for David's reign, which was not perfect, Israel overthrew the Laws and principles of God's heavenly rule. The result? Israel lose this high position as they are carried off to Babylon, and from then on God is known only as the "God of Heaven", NOT "the God of heaven AND earth". With Jerusalem - the center of Israel's gathering, gone, and the Temple - God's residence on earth, gone, the "times of the Gentiles" started again and will only stop with the defeat of the Beast - a Gentile king.

    With the ten northern Tribes forever dispersed, and only 2.5% of the two southern Tribes returning from Babylon, Jesus Christ arrives in occupied Israel and offers Israel a Kingdom where God's rules, as applied in heaven, would fill the earth. Israel had no interest in such a Kingdom. Their only ambition was to continue with their present earthly ways except with the hope of self-determination. That is, Israel did not want God's commands ruling them. They wanted to maintain their present system of dirty politics, sinning and corruption, just without the Romans imposing upon them. Any thought of "repenting" for the Kingdom was abhorrent, and any Man pointing their true condition out was to done away with.

    The Kingdom that our Lord Jesus offered to Israel was very different to anything seen on earth. The first thing about this Kingdom was that it aspired to return to Eden and the Tree of Life. The men who would partake of this Kingdom and impose its manner of rule, were to undergo a second, spiritual, divine and heavenly birth via the mouth. This was in order to have men with the nature of the King - God. And having this nature, they would automatically rule like God. But there were TWO hindrances to accessing the divine life. (i) Israel's sins and (ii) Israel's enemies - men and the principalities and powers in heavenly places under Lucifer - a heavenly being. The proposed King, Jesus, while on earth, is tested by these enemies. Will He succumb to sin to gain the Kingdoms of the world (Lk.4:6-7), and will demons have power of Him like they did over Israelites? He succumbs to neither and declares in Luke 11:20, "But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you."

    The second thing about this Kingdom was that it was to be gained ONLY BY, and AT, God's hand. It was to received when, in in what manner that God decided. Of this Abraham shows the way. He refuses the spoils of the slaughter of kings. His reason? "I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth, That I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich" (Genesis 14:22b-23) Later, Abraham refuses even the land offered for his grave as a gift and pays for it. The gaining of this earth and its joys and wealth by the nations is by force and subtlety and by making pacts with the usurper Lucifer. The gaining of the heavenly Kingdom is ONLY by the hand of God.

    The third thing about this Heavenly Kingdom is that God's name is bound with it. Shall he allow base men to rule in His name and corrupt it as they have done and bring His name into disrepute as Israel did? So besides the new birth, the qualification for running God's affairs in a heavenly manner on earth is a rigorous and vigorous training in matters of obedience and righteousness. The obedience and righteousness needed to be a co-king with Jesus when He takes up His throne on earth, is the righteousness and obedience established by Jesus. So besides having the intrinsic nature of Jesus by the new birth, a training is initiated by God whereby the future co-king of Jesus so that, "Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered" (Hebrews 5:8). The way to being qualified for this Heavenly Kingdom is, "... to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God" (Acts 14:22). That is, through a combination of a new birth, correct eating and trials, "... we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, ... ." (Romans 8:28-29). Only men and women who are trained and refined by fire and who aspire to the image of Jesus Christ Himself, will be accounted worthy to partake of the rulership of this Heavenly Kingdom.

    The fourth thing about this Kingdom is that the King has preeminence. That is, until His, Jesus', throne is set up, NO SERVANT, NO DISCIPLE, can partake of this Kingdom. Any attempt by a Christian to rule before Christ is handed the Kingdom by His Father is (1) a deep insult to God's decree of Christ's preeminence in ALL things, and (2) vain because God just will not give it. The misguided Christian who seeks to me king, dictator, congressman, mayor and/or judge , can only continue the kingdom of men, not the Kingdom of Heaven. The King must be crowned and given His throne ere a subordinate king has any glory. Now, in the fourth paragraph above, we saw that the Kingdom is present when the King rules. A king might be a king, but if he is in exile, he does not have a kingdom. So until the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, the Kingdom of Heaven is NOT established on earth. What IS established on earth is an entity with Christ as the HEAD. Christ's present "kingship" is limited to the Church. The Church is God' new House, new People and new Testimony since Israel failed. The Church has its set of heavenly rules. If the Church has "learned obedience" then the Church is the kingdom on earth. Unfortunately, as the letters of the New Testament show, the Church has gone the way of Israel. Few are the Overcomers.

    Matthew 28:18 says that, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth". This does not mean that His and His Farher's rules are kept on earth. It means that our Lord Jesus has the POWER to steer things in heaven and in the earth. But He, the King, is not present bodily, His throne is still to be given to Him (Revelation Chapter 4), and He does not enforce heavenly rule yet. Thus, while the Church should be subject to His rule, the Gentiles' times are not yet full and the Kingdom of Heaven is yet future. Any attempt by a Christian to take a position of rule is insulting and vain. Whether he/she is worthy of being a co-king with our Lord Jesus will be decided at the Bema in the air when our Lord returns. Until then, let not a Christian take a position of rule. He is only shoring up the corrupt rule of the Gentiles and shoring up Satan's kingdom.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    7,939

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    As I've been trying to explain, I've been burdened with understanding the Olivet Discourse for many, man years. I memorized Matthew 24 back in 72 or 73. I've sort of been obsessed with putting it together because I went through several interpretations early on, as I read one commentary after another. I got mixed up because there were so many opinions out there. Preeminent was Hal Lindsey. It wasn't long before I realized his Pretrib was wrong, and along with it a number of other predictions. Nevertheless, I liked Hal Lindsey and his efforts at interpreting Bible Prophecy in a futurist way. And I liked his Common Market theory of the Antichristian reign. It was wrong, but I think it's somewhat close, in some ways. I believe Antichrist will rule in Europe.

    I then got into Daniel, and began to study secular and Christian history from the perspective of Daniel's prophecy of the Great Image (actually, Nebuchadnezzar's Dream). I went through all of history to see if I could recognize the development of the two Roman legs of this Great Image. Gordon Lindsay's books at suggested this interpretation.

    What I found is something I'm still expressing today, about 45 years later! But up until the last few years there were a few points in the Olivet Discourse that just didn't make sense in all its parts. Suddenly, one day not too long ago I began to see it, as many criticisms came at me on this very forum. And I believe I put together the last few pieces of the puzzle.

    And so I'm excited! You may think me totally wrong, but I'm still excited, because I *believe* I've filled in the missing pieces. It doesn't matter to me that I get criticized. I want the criticism. I'm excited because I no longer see in my critics points that truly refute my views. I still welcome any and all criticisms or refutations.
    Aah cool. Just trying to understand the significance. I normally just drop it when I realise people aren't catching on to my revelation, then maybe start up again a year later. I respect your resilience.

    Generally my and your view of Matthew 24 match except for your historical view of v15-26. I find extreme irony in that the abomination and 3.5 year distress of Matt 24 mentioned just prior to the second coming; matches the future Rev 13 expectation of an abomination and 3.5 year period of distress of the beast's reign just prior to the second coming. Yet you insist that portion of Matt 24 is historical.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,858
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    Revelation places outside of the city as a part of Jerusalem

    Revelation 11:8
    8 Their bodies will lie in the public square of the great city—which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt—where also their Lord was crucified.
    As I seem unable to edit posts - you miss the point that Hebrews 13 shows that OUTSIDE the city, where Jesus was crucified, is NOT a Holy place.
    It is EXPLICIT in the verses quoted, that ONE place is "the Holy Place" and the OTHER place is NOT a Holy place at all.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Clanton Alabama
    Posts
    987

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    As I've been trying to explain, I've been burdened with understanding the Olivet Discourse for many, man years. I memorized Matthew 24 back in 72 or 73. I've sort of been obsessed with putting it together because I went through several interpretations early on, as I read one commentary after another. I got mixed up because there were so many opinions out there. Preeminent was Hal Lindsey. It wasn't long before I realized his Pretrib was wrong, and along with it a number of other predictions. Nevertheless, I liked Hal Lindsey and his efforts at interpreting Bible Prophecy in a futurist way. And I liked his Common Market theory of the Antichristian reign. It was wrong, but I think it's somewhat close, in some ways. I believe Antichrist will rule in Europe.

    I then got into Daniel, and began to study secular and Christian history from the perspective of Daniel's prophecy of the Great Image (actually, Nebuchadnezzar's Dream). I went through all of history to see if I could recognize the development of the two Roman legs of this Great Image. Gordon Lindsay's books at suggested this interpretation.

    What I found is something I'm still expressing today, about 45 years later! But up until the last few years there were a few points in the Olivet Discourse that just didn't make sense in all its parts. Suddenly, one day not too long ago I began to see it, as many criticisms came at me on this very forum. And I believe I put together the last few pieces of the puzzle.

    And so I'm excited! You may think me totally wrong, but I'm still excited, because I *believe* I've filled in the missing pieces. It doesn't matter to me that I get criticized. I want the criticism. I'm excited because I no longer see in my critics points that truly refute my views. I still welcome any and all criticisms or refutations.
    Since this seems to be a passion of yours I will offer up my 2 cents, I have done an Exegesis on Matt. 24, but I will just offer up a few snippets as per the four sections I see.

    1.) Rome Destroys the Temple/sacks the city. Jesus mentioned this first, the his disciples wanted to know when.

    Matthew 24 King James Version (KJV)
    24 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. 2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? 4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. 5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. 6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.

    Step by step here, Jesus prophecies about the Temple's destruction and the disciples want to know when this will happen AND when he will come again AND when the world will end as we know it. So I think Jesus gives them EVERY ANSWER to EVERY QUESTION in partitioned responses. Firstly about the Temple:

    Jesus says hey, do not let anyone deceive you, there are going to be false christs, I think this fulfills John 5:43, the Pharisees, Jews understood Rome was the Fourth Beast, they did not understand the Little Horn would come 2000 some odd years later, thus when they saw Rome becoming more aggressive, they put forth Messiahs desperately, naturally since they thought Rome was the Fourth Beast (and they were correct, it was the Fourth Beast). The Jews were looking for a Conquering Political figure, not a Lamb who was a suffering servant. So I think they tried to force someone to the fore, this is what Jesus is warning the disciples about, because he knows if the disciples journey back to Jerusalem to fight for their country/city/people that they will more than likely be killed, hurting the commission Jesus gave them, to spread the Gospel. Jesus doesn't want them to mistake this 70 AD event for the Zechariah 14 event where Jesus will indeed show up in Jerusalem to save the Jewish peoples, so he tells them in verse 6 that when they hear of these things not to worry, because the END WILL BE BY AND BY..............or as per Matthew, the End is not yet. So Jesus basically tells the disciples, hey guys, the Temple will be destroyed, you will hear about this from afar, wars and rumours of wars, but do not under any circumstances come back looking for me as per my Second Coming because my second coming will be later on, you will die first (he basically says that in verse 9). So verses 1-6 is all about the 70 AD event.

    2.) Church Age (would naturally cover 70 AD but of course it's MOSTLY after 70 AD. And I think Jesus meant it that way.)

    7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. 8 All these are the beginning of sorrows. 9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. 10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. 11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. 12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. 13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. 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.

    The reason Jesus speaks about Rumours of Wars in verse 6 and then about Kingdoms arising against Kingdoms in verse 7 is he TRANSITIONS to the 2000 some odd year Church Age. Remember, he says at the end of verse 6, THE END IS NOT YET or is by and by. So the Kingdom vs. Kingdom, Nation vs. Nation, Pestilences, Famines and Earthquakes in DIFFERENT PLACES (not Jerusalem per se) are all a part of the SORROWS, better known as the Birth Pangs, as these things get more frequent the end time events will get closer and closer. So the Nation vs. Nation, Kingdom vs. Kingdom means wars will become more frequent, as will the pestilence, famines and earthquakes until the end times are BIRTHED. That is what Jesus is trying to convey here.

    Jesus then seems to say but until that time arrives (verse 15) here is a few more things that will happen in the Church Age Period. In verse 9 he tells the disciples that basically all of them will be killed, he adds that the world will hate them. Then Jesus mentions false prophets again, evry mention IMHO, is about a different time period, the false preachers will lead many astray, we see this every day from David Koresh to Jim Jones etc. etc. etc. We might add in the Rabbis who led the Jews away from Christ after Christs death. Jesus then tells them that because people love sin they will wax cold, I think that is RIGHT NOW !! Abortion is cold !! How could a mother do that ? No conscious at all !! He that ENDURES to the end shall be saved means we must run the full race, it has nothing to do with the End Time Events and enduring the Anti-Christ. That is why the very next verse tells us that once the Gospel has been preached unto all the World, then THE END will come !! Amen. (THE RAPTURE should be next, verses 36-51, but of course Matthew did not given the Rapture understanding.)

    3.) The 70th Week or The Tribulation Period. (THREE SECTIONS)

    15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand 16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: 17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: 18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. 19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: 21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

    {{{ This can only be the End Time Abomination of Desolation, the other verses all around it prove this. Verse 21 cites Dan. 12, the GREATEST TROUBLES EVER, which says in Daniel 12 that the Saints will be raised up and stand in their lot at the end, so it can be nothing but the END TIMES, or else why mention Daniel? By the way, Daniel wrote what the man in linen (Jesus) said, so really Jesus is just quoting himself. Then in verse 22 (BELOW) we see that Jesus says those days will be Shortened, which means he will return to end the Jews tribulation after 1260 days, else no flesh would have been saved, God understood that when he made His original prophecies, He didn't have to change His plans. We also see THE Anti-Christ and False Prophet in verse 24. There is no doubt this is END TIME EVENTS. }}}

    22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. 23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. 24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. 25 Behold, I have told you before. 26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. 27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.

    {{{ In the third mention of false christs, we have the third time period from Jesus. We have the END TIMES mentioned in verse 14 as coming after the Gospel has been preached unto all the world, and we see the AoD (verse 15) is in that 70th week time period. Thus we get the Anti-Christ and False Prophet menton, these are DIFFERENT, they perform MIRACLES !! Jesus said if it were possible (IF meaning its not possible) they would deceive the ELECT....well who is the elect here ? The Jews who have Repented and thus Flee Judea unto Petra, it can't be the Church who is in Heaven, it can't be the 2/3 of the Jews who refused to repent, they are already deceived !! The ELECT are the Jews (1/3) who Repented. Why can't they be deceived ? Because Jesus tells them EXACTLY WHERE HE IS COMING FROM !! The Eastern Skies !!

    Jesus says behold, I have told you before (beforehand I have forewarned you). Do not go unto these false christs or false prophets in the Desert or in the Storeroom (SECRET CHAMBERS) that will not be me. Thus he has warned them, don't go out unto them (from their safezone in Petra) or else they will kill you.....if they were not in Petra they wouldn't need to be DECEIVED, the Anti-Christ/Beast would just kill them. Jesus them tells them where he will be coming from, I will come from the EASTERN SKIES !! Then he tells them another important event he will be at, Armageddon. He tells them the eagles are always where the Carcass is at. By reading Rev. 19, the Fowls at the Marriage Supper, we are to understand this is what Jesus means here about the eagles being where the Carcass is at. The Marriage Supper is Armageddon, we eat the Kings flesh and the Captains flesh METAPHORICALLY SPEAKING. So this is another way of Jesus saying when I return, I will be Conquering the evil of this world, not co-mingling with them.}}}


    29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

    {{{ The Tribulation of those days start with the First Seal and lasts to the 7th Vial, so IMMEDIATELY AFTER those days, which Joel told us about, Jesus will return, these events have Joel's prophecy in them but is about all the Seals, Trumpets and Vials, then when the 7th Vial is poured out Jesus will return in the clouds (Eastern Skies). The Angels gather the Elect (Church/Bride) to return with Jesus from the Four Winds (all parts or every directions) of Heaven, just as Rev. ch. 19 tells us. }}}


    Verses 36-51 is the Rapture, Mathew was not given the Rapture understanding, thus he placed it here at the end of the passage, unless this was meant to go with the Matthew 25 passage about the 10 virgins with 5 being locked out, either way, this is the Pre tribulation Rapture IMHO.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,456

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    OK. Thanks for the exchange. Instead of "you said this" - "I said this", for what it's worth, I'll set forth my understanding of the doctrine of the Kingdom.

    From Adam though Noah men ruled the earth. From Babylon onward, each nation ruled itself and even subdivided the rule from city to city - the situation we had when Abraham entered Canaan and had to rescue Lot. But this rule was earthly, having as its kings "the basest of men" (Dan.4:17). This was supposed to change when God gave Israel Canaan. For the first time there was a nation in place that was supposed to rule by applying the Law given from God. It was supposed to be a "heavenly theocracy". The history of this nation Israel is well documented, and except for David's reign, which was not perfect, Israel overthrew the Laws and principles of God's heavenly rule. The result? Israel lose this high position as they are carried off to Babylon, and from then on God is known only as the "God of Heaven", NOT "the God of heaven AND earth". With Jerusalem - the center of Israel's gathering, gone, and the Temple - God's residence on earth, gone, the "times of the Gentiles" started again and will only stop with the defeat of the Beast - a Gentile king.

    With the ten northern Tribes forever dispersed, and only 2.5% of the two southern Tribes returning from Babylon, Jesus Christ arrives in occupied Israel and offers Israel a Kingdom where God's rules, as applied in heaven, would fill the earth. Israel had no interest in such a Kingdom. Their only ambition was to continue with their present earthly ways except with the hope of self-determination. That is, Israel did not want God's commands ruling them. They wanted to maintain their present system of dirty politics, sinning and corruption, just without the Romans imposing upon them. Any thought of "repenting" for the Kingdom was abhorrent, and any Man pointing their true condition out was to done away with.

    The Kingdom that our Lord Jesus offered to Israel was very different to anything seen on earth. The first thing about this Kingdom was that it aspired to return to Eden and the Tree of Life. The men who would partake of this Kingdom and impose its manner of rule, were to undergo a second, spiritual, divine and heavenly birth via the mouth. This was in order to have men with the nature of the King - God. And having this nature, they would automatically rule like God. But there were TWO hindrances to accessing the divine life. (i) Israel's sins and (ii) Israel's enemies - men and the principalities and powers in heavenly places under Lucifer - a heavenly being. The proposed King, Jesus, while on earth, is tested by these enemies. Will He succumb to sin to gain the Kingdoms of the world (Lk.4:6-7), and will demons have power of Him like they did over Israelites? He succumbs to neither and declares in Luke 11:20, "But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you."

    The second thing about this Kingdom was that it was to be gained ONLY BY, and AT, God's hand. It was to received when, in in what manner that God decided. Of this Abraham shows the way. He refuses the spoils of the slaughter of kings. His reason? "I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth, That I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich" (Genesis 14:22b-23) Later, Abraham refuses even the land offered for his grave as a gift and pays for it. The gaining of this earth and its joys and wealth by the nations is by force and subtlety and by making pacts with the usurper Lucifer. The gaining of the heavenly Kingdom is ONLY by the hand of God.

    The third thing about this Heavenly Kingdom is that God's name is bound with it. Shall he allow base men to rule in His name and corrupt it as they have done and bring His name into disrepute as Israel did? So besides the new birth, the qualification for running God's affairs in a heavenly manner on earth is a rigorous and vigorous training in matters of obedience and righteousness. The obedience and righteousness needed to be a co-king with Jesus when He takes up His throne on earth, is the righteousness and obedience established by Jesus. So besides having the intrinsic nature of Jesus by the new birth, a training is initiated by God whereby the future co-king of Jesus so that, "Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered" (Hebrews 5:8). The way to being qualified for this Heavenly Kingdom is, "... to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God" (Acts 14:22). That is, through a combination of a new birth, correct eating and trials, "... we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, ... ." (Romans 8:28-29). Only men and women who are trained and refined by fire and who aspire to the image of Jesus Christ Himself, will be accounted worthy to partake of the rulership of this Heavenly Kingdom.

    The fourth thing about this Kingdom is that the King has preeminence. That is, until His, Jesus', throne is set up, NO SERVANT, NO DISCIPLE, can partake of this Kingdom. Any attempt by a Christian to rule before Christ is handed the Kingdom by His Father is (1) a deep insult to God's decree of Christ's preeminence in ALL things, and (2) vain because God just will not give it. The misguided Christian who seeks to me king, dictator, congressman, mayor and/or judge , can only continue the kingdom of men, not the Kingdom of Heaven. The King must be crowned and given His throne ere a subordinate king has any glory. Now, in the fourth paragraph above, we saw that the Kingdom is present when the King rules. A king might be a king, but if he is in exile, he does not have a kingdom. So until the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, the Kingdom of Heaven is NOT established on earth. What IS established on earth is an entity with Christ as the HEAD. Christ's present "kingship" is limited to the Church. The Church is God' new House, new People and new Testimony since Israel failed. The Church has its set of heavenly rules. If the Church has "learned obedience" then the Church is the kingdom on earth. Unfortunately, as the letters of the New Testament show, the Church has gone the way of Israel. Few are the Overcomers.

    Matthew 28:18 says that, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth". This does not mean that His and His Farher's rules are kept on earth. It means that our Lord Jesus has the POWER to steer things in heaven and in the earth. But He, the King, is not present bodily, His throne is still to be given to Him (Revelation Chapter 4), and He does not enforce heavenly rule yet. Thus, while the Church should be subject to His rule, the Gentiles' times are not yet full and the Kingdom of Heaven is yet future. Any attempt by a Christian to take a position of rule is insulting and vain. Whether he/she is worthy of being a co-king with our Lord Jesus will be decided at the Bema in the air when our Lord returns. Until then, let not a Christian take a position of rule. He is only shoring up the corrupt rule of the Gentiles and shoring up Satan's kingdom.
    Yes, that's very coherent and concise, but I don't see it as consistent. If God ruled on earth in the past, then it would be "changing His ways" to not be able to do that again. If God ruled in Israel as a theocracy, then He can also do some among Christian nations. His expressed wish to do so was not frustrated by Israel's temporal failures. Nations rise and fall. And what failed in the past can be reformed in the present, and may succeed in the future.

    We have very different ways of looking at this. And I believe it's significant. That's why I regularly promote my view of a Christian theocracy--not because it is always practical, but because it has worked and can work. And I think it expresses God's wish for all nations presently upon the earth. Otherwise, what kind of gospel are we preaching if it cannot convert whole nations to the faith?

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,456

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Aah cool. Just trying to understand the significance. I normally just drop it when I realise people aren't catching on to my revelation, then maybe start up again a year later. I respect your resilience.

    Generally my and your view of Matthew 24 match except for your historical view of v15-26. I find extreme irony in that the abomination and 3.5 year distress of Matt 24 mentioned just prior to the second coming; matches the future Rev 13 expectation of an abomination and 3.5 year period of distress of the beast's reign just prior to the second coming. Yet you insist that portion of Matt 24 is historical.
    To my close friends I usually pay them respect by admitting that their view really runs parallel with my view. Despite my "historicist" view of the "Great Tribulation" and the "AoD" I still believe in a *future* 3.5 years in which the Antichrist will persecute the Church. I just don't call it the "Great Tribulation." Nor do I call it the "AoD." We just agree that there will be a future "Tribulation Period" for Christians in the time of Antichrist's reign.

    A major reason that I've been so repetitive in discussion of the Olivet Discourse is because over the last 2 or 3 years I've been trying to iron out some of the problems others have pointed out here. These were legitimate concerns that forced me to either amend my views or explain the dilemma. It has all been very helpful to me personally, although it really can't help others very much when I continue to *evolve* in my positions.

    Unfortunately, some of the very "critical attitudes" sometimes expressed against my views were most helpful and yet were also so destructive that I've had to persevere in clarifying exactly what I do believe. One brother regularly mocks my views, and presents them as if they are irrational and stupid. He frames my arguments in a misrepresentative way either because he misunderstood my positions or simply wanted to make them appear faulty.

    I will, in a few moments, post a perspective on this subject built on a discussion I was having with my brother, who approaches this more from the lingual perspective--that's much more his forte than mine! He hasn't made up his mind over what he believes, but in the meantime is helping by getting me to clarify what I believe so as to judge whether the language of the text supports my views. This is an in-process engagement, so it will be a while before I can say how he fully evaluates this.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,456

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revelation Man View Post
    Since this seems to be a passion of yours I will offer up my 2 cents, I have done an Exegesis on Matt. 24, but I will just offer up a few snippets as per the four sections I see.

    1.) Rome Destroys the Temple/sacks the city. Jesus mentioned this first, the his disciples wanted to know when.

    Matthew 24 King James Version (KJV)
    24 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. 2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? 4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. 5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. 6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.

    Step by step here, Jesus prophecies about the Temple's destruction and the disciples want to know when this will happen AND when he will come again AND when the world will end as we know it. So I think Jesus gives them EVERY ANSWER to EVERY QUESTION in partitioned responses. Firstly about the Temple:

    Jesus says hey, do not let anyone deceive you, there are going to be false christs, I think this fulfills John 5:43, the Pharisees, Jews understood Rome was the Fourth Beast, they did not understand the Little Horn would come 2000 some odd years later, thus when they saw Rome becoming more aggressive, they put forth Messiahs desperately, naturally since they thought Rome was the Fourth Beast (and they were correct, it was the Fourth Beast). The Jews were looking for a Conquering Political figure, not a Lamb who was a suffering servant. So I think they tried to force someone to the fore, this is what Jesus is warning the disciples about, because he knows if the disciples journey back to Jerusalem to fight for their country/city/people that they will more than likely be killed, hurting the commission Jesus gave them, to spread the Gospel. Jesus doesn't want them to mistake this 70 AD event for the Zechariah 14 event where Jesus will indeed show up in Jerusalem to save the Jewish peoples, so he tells them in verse 6 that when they hear of these things not to worry, because the END WILL BE BY AND BY..............or as per Matthew, the End is not yet. So Jesus basically tells the disciples, hey guys, the Temple will be destroyed, you will hear about this from afar, wars and rumours of wars, but do not under any circumstances come back looking for me as per my Second Coming because my second coming will be later on, you will die first (he basically says that in verse 9). So verses 1-6 is all about the 70 AD event.
    Well and good so far.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revelation Man
    2.) Church Age (would naturally cover 70 AD but of course it's MOSTLY after 70 AD. And I think Jesus meant it that way.)

    7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. 8 All these are the beginning of sorrows. 9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. 10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. 11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. 12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. 13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. 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.

    The reason Jesus speaks about Rumours of Wars in verse 6 and then about Kingdoms arising against Kingdoms in verse 7 is he TRANSITIONS to the 2000 some odd year Church Age. Remember, he says at the end of verse 6, THE END IS NOT YET or is by and by. So the Kingdom vs. Kingdom, Nation vs. Nation, Pestilences, Famines and Earthquakes in DIFFERENT PLACES (not Jerusalem per se) are all a part of the SORROWS, better known as the Birth Pangs, as these things get more frequent the end time events will get closer and closer. So the Nation vs. Nation, Kingdom vs. Kingdom means wars will become more frequent, as will the pestilence, famines and earthquakes until the end times are BIRTHED. That is what Jesus is trying to convey here.

    Jesus then seems to say but until that time arrives (verse 15) here is a few more things that will happen in the Church Age Period. In verse 9 he tells the disciples that basically all of them will be killed, he adds that the world will hate them. Then Jesus mentions false prophets again, evry mention IMHO, is about a different time period, the false preachers will lead many astray, we see this every day from David Koresh to Jim Jones etc. etc. etc. We might add in the Rabbis who led the Jews away from Christ after Christs death. Jesus then tells them that because people love sin they will wax cold, I think that is RIGHT NOW !! Abortion is cold !! How could a mother do that ? No conscious at all !! He that ENDURES to the end shall be saved means we must run the full race, it has nothing to do with the End Time Events and enduring the Anti-Christ. That is why the very next verse tells us that once the Gospel has been preached unto all the World, then THE END will come !! Amen. (THE RAPTURE should be next, verses 36-51, but of course Matthew did not given the Rapture understanding.)
    Here we have some significant differences, but not necessarily of great import as far as Christian living. I see this part of the Discourse as continuing on about the generation of Christ and his Apostles. The "wars and rumors of wars" were preliminary to the march of the Romans against the Jews 66-70 AD.

    But I will give you this. What I believe Jesus applied to the Early Church I think he meant to imply would continue until the end of the age. He was just saying, in my view, that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD would not immediately bring about the end of the age. Instead, the Jews would go into great tribulation, suffering an age-long Diaspora until Christ comes back to save them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revelation Man
    3.) The 70th Week or The Tribulation Period. (THREE SECTIONS)

    15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand 16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: 17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: 18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. 19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: 21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

    {{{ This can only be the End Time Abomination of Desolation, the other verses all around it prove this. Verse 21 cites Dan. 12, the GREATEST TROUBLES EVER, which says in Daniel 12 that the Saints will be raised up and stand in their lot at the end, so it can be nothing but the END TIMES, or else why mention Daniel? By the way, Daniel wrote what the man in linen (Jesus) said, so really Jesus is just quoting himself. Then in verse 22 (BELOW) we see that Jesus says those days will be Shortened, which means he will return to end the Jews tribulation after 1260 days, else no flesh would have been saved, God understood that when he made His original prophecies, He didn't have to change His plans. We also see THE Anti-Christ and False Prophet in verse 24. There is no doubt this is END TIME EVENTS. }}}

    22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. 23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. 24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. 25 Behold, I have told you before. 26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. 27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.

    {{{ In the third mention of false christs, we have the third time period from Jesus. We have the END TIMES mentioned in verse 14 as coming after the Gospel has been preached unto all the world, and we see the AoD (verse 15) is in that 70th week time period. Thus we get the Anti-Christ and False Prophet menton, these are DIFFERENT, they perform MIRACLES !! Jesus said if it were possible (IF meaning its not possible) they would deceive the ELECT....well who is the elect here ? The Jews who have Repented and thus Flee Judea unto Petra, it can't be the Church who is in Heaven, it can't be the 2/3 of the Jews who refused to repent, they are already deceived !! The ELECT are the Jews (1/3) who Repented. Why can't they be deceived ? Because Jesus tells them EXACTLY WHERE HE IS COMING FROM !! The Eastern Skies !!

    Jesus says behold, I have told you before (beforehand I have forewarned you). Do not go unto these false christs or false prophets in the Desert or in the Storeroom (SECRET CHAMBERS) that will not be me. Thus he has warned them, don't go out unto them (from their safezone in Petra) or else they will kill you.....if they were not in Petra they wouldn't need to be DECEIVED, the Anti-Christ/Beast would just kill them. Jesus them tells them where he will be coming from, I will come from the EASTERN SKIES !! Then he tells them another important event he will be at, Armageddon. He tells them the eagles are always where the Carcass is at. By reading Rev. 19, the Fowls at the Marriage Supper, we are to understand this is what Jesus means here about the eagles being where the Carcass is at. The Marriage Supper is Armageddon, we eat the Kings flesh and the Captains flesh METAPHORICALLY SPEAKING. So this is another way of Jesus saying when I return, I will be Conquering the evil of this world, not co-mingling with them.}}}


    29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

    {{{ The Tribulation of those days start with the First Seal and lasts to the 7th Vial, so IMMEDIATELY AFTER those days, which Joel told us about, Jesus will return, these events have Joel's prophecy in them but is about all the Seals, Trumpets and Vials, then when the 7th Vial is poured out Jesus will return in the clouds (Eastern Skies). The Angels gather the Elect (Church/Bride) to return with Jesus from the Four Winds (all parts or every directions) of Heaven, just as Rev. ch. 19 tells us. }}}


    Verses 36-51 is the Rapture, Mathew was not given the Rapture understanding, thus he placed it here at the end of the passage, unless this was meant to go with the Matthew 25 passage about the 10 virgins with 5 being locked out, either way, this is the Pre tribulation Rapture IMHO.
    Here is where most of our bigger differences occur. In my view you are conflating the experience of Jesus' generation with the end times generation. The tribulations Jesus said would befall the unbelieving Jews you apply to the tribulation of elect Jews during the Reign of Antichrist.

    In my view, the Great Tribulation is defined as a "punishment" inflicted by God upon the unbelieving Jews in Christ's generation. And it extends all the way through to the end of the age. Caught in the cross fire are the believing Jews, the Early Church, who suffered in the dislocations inflicted upon Israel by the Romans and by many other nations throughout history.

    But thanks for your version. It remains something that I will regularly have to address as I propose my own views. Thank you.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,456

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    In the course of discussing this subject with my brother, I've had to address a few issues. He is more adept at the biblical languages, and is approaching this from a neutral pov, wanting to judge my position based on the actual text. Here is my response...

    I believe it is legitimate to compare description of the AoD in Jesus' Olivet Discourse with the AoD of Daniel's 70 Weeks Prophecy.

    Matt 24.15 So when you see *standing in the holy place* ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel.

    So, I'm viewing all versions of the Olivet Discourse with the 70 Weeks Prophecy in Dan 9.

    Dan 9.27 And *at the temple* he will set up an abomination that causes desolation.

    I see several important elements in the Daniel passage that Jesus drew upon...

    1) An Army was coming to destroy Jerusalem and the temple.

    Dan 9.26 The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.

    Jesus saw this as an army "standing" against the city and against the temple, and as encircling the walls of Jerusalem. Jesus seems to insert the word "standing" into the Daniel text with the assumption that Daniel is referring to a "standing army."

    Matt 24.Matt 24.15 So when you see standing in the holy place...
    Luke 21.20 When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near.

    2) The Army was called an "abomination."

    Jesus saw the Roman Army as standing in holy territory, in preparation to destroy the city and the temple. It was a *sacrilege* to thus stand around the holy city.

    Matt 24.15 So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation...
    Luke 21.20 When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies...

    3) The abomination was on the temple. This is the Septuagint version.

    LXX Dan 9.27 ...and *on the temple* the abomination of desolations.

    Jesus saw this as the Roman Army standing *on* holy ground in a position of attacking the temple.

    Matt 24.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.”

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    6,609

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    That's okay. I need to test my views against all concerns. My brother offered me some thoughts as possible counter-arguments. I'll post them next.
    we agree more than you think.

    really appreciate you, and your posting and sharing manner.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,456

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Taylor View Post
    we agree more than you think.

    really appreciate you, and your posting and sharing manner.
    You must be a detail person like myself. There are a lot of detailed elements that require some thought. Thanks so much for looking a little deeper!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Olivet Discourse
    By The Lion and his lamb in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 127
    Last Post: Nov 18th 2015, 12:26 AM
  2. Information A Historicist View of the Church Age
    By Cyberseeker in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: Jun 2nd 2015, 08:56 PM
  3. Another view of the Olivet Discourse
    By sudds in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Jan 18th 2011, 04:59 PM
  4. Discussion The Olivet Discourse
    By Searcher1 in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: Apr 15th 2009, 02:18 PM
  5. Information The Olivet Discourse
    By markedward in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: Jun 11th 2008, 03:19 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •