Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 130

Thread: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,490

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    She had to go off to work. I called her and apologized. I do think I should apologize to you for my *tone,* though. Maybe we should debate that! lol

    That may be true, but not on this occasion. I've had an argument with my wife, a friend is here installing a splash back, and this Forum isn't cooperating very well. I left off being more precise on purpose, until I could get things more organized today!

    No, I was aware, and I appreciate your repeating the arguments even more clearly. I had every intention of getting back to your questions. Specifically, I see all 3 "great distresses" in all 3 versions as being the same "Great Tribulation." They are all a *Jewish Punishment,* and they all are *unrepeatable Jewish punishments.* Clearly, this was not a punishment for the Jewish believers. But this was what they would experience as co-citizens of the Jewish State.
    Hope things are better at home. As this post unfolds I will show you that the Olivet discourse focusses a tiny bit on unsaved Israel, and a lot on the saved/elect. The one distress is a JUDGMENT on sinful Israel, with specific instructions for saved Israel to escape that judgment. Unlike the greatest distress which also involves the elect.



    1) I do *not* see any striking contrast among the 3 versions suggesting some are world-wide in scope, and the other as purely local in scope. I suppose it depends on how you *read* each passage. When I read Matthew and Mark I read them the *same way* that I read Luke. I see them all as a *Jewish Punishment,* and as a local experience for the Jewish People. I just don't see it as being any different in Matthew and Mark than I would read it in Luke!
    1) I need your specific opinion on Matthew 24:22 , how do you see these words and why? Why the comparison with the WORLD. Why could NO-ONE survive? The wording of the Matthew distress points to something world-wide, not localised.
    For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again. If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened


    2) I see the order in Matt 24 as significant as any other aspect of Scriptures.

    Matt 24.9 “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. ...14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
    15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel...

    This is a message being given to Jesus' *disciples* with specific instructions to them. As such, it is given prior to the cross for people who would live after the cross in the 1st generation of the Church, which began as a Jewish Church. They were told to begin the gospel mission, and were assured this mission would continue to be generated beyond the borders of Israel and out among the nations. And this mission would continue to the end of the age, they were promised.

    The fact Jesus then, in sequence, returns to the original message, that the temple would be destroyed, does not torture the flow of ideas. Rather, this is a normal return to the original questions, prompting the Discourse, after brief excursions into related events. Digressions happen *all the time* in conversations and speeches.

    And the Abomination of Desolation is, I believe, a return to the original theme of the temple's destruction. The Abomination of Desolation does contain the word "desolation," which means *destruction.* Jesus had said that the temple would be *destroyed.* He was asked *when* it will be destroyed. He was now answering that despite the continuation of the gospel mission until the end of the age, his own generation would see this temple destruction as an "abomination of desolation" within his own generation. There is nothing incongruent about this, from my perspective.
    The digression in Luke is specifically explained using the phrase "before all this". My view has the advantage that it does not need to return to any themes, it merely unfolds in the order of events stated. Which is a clear advantage due to Occams razor, let's keep it simple unless there is a need to complicate it. And in EVERY issue, my view remains the more objective of the two, including this "sequence" argument.


    It may be that your concerns were no more specific than my answers? For example, what specifically is there about Matthew and Mark that is *universal* that in Luke is purely *local?*

    But I can guess what issues you may have. For example, the universal mission of the Church is contained in Matthew. But it is also contained in Luke, or is that purely "local?"
    Matt 24.14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
    Luke 21.13 And so you will bear testimony to me. 14 But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. 15 For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict.
    [/I]
    If you compare the above related passages you will notice the differences. I think many people don't realize that they are both saying the same thing! One is speaking of the universal mission of the Church. And the other is speaking of the beginning of the universal mission, as Jesus' own disciples experienced it. Rather than dividing them into "universal" and "local" categories, why not recognize that Luke's version actually *explains* what Jesus meant in the other 2 versions?
    I specifically quoted the verse in question, Matthew 24:22 "no-one would survive". Even v21 compares the distress to the WHOLE WORLD: For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.
    These verses point to a universal nature of the unequalled distress.

    Your comparison with Luke 21:13 is not a conclusive argument, merely a subjective impression you have, the impression I get is v13 relates to Acts type events where for example Paul stands before judges and kings. And Matthew 24:14 relates specifically to the conclusion of the gospel being preached to the whole world. Once again my view is more objective here, because we both agree on Luke, yet Matthew is more clearly supporting my view on "the whole world"

    You are here purely *asserting* these differences. Why would you say that the "elect" is not also believing Jews? Two kinds of Jews go through the Great Distress, in my view--believing Jews and unbelieving Jews. For the sake of the "elect," ie the believing Jews, the Jewish People as a whole will not be annihilated or go extinct.
    I do say the elect are believing Jews. They are the elect/chosen ones, not unbelieving Jews. I do not "merely assert" these differences, if you read my post, I gave 5 quotes (5 QUOTES)........ FIVE quotes........5 quotes to show that believing Jews were in mind during the Olivet discourse. The ONLY TIME unbelieving Israel is in mind is Luke 21:22-24 where the Roman Siege is mentioned and believers were told how to escape Jerusalem in time. Thus once again, my view of the OD is more in line with the theme which is instructions and warnings to believers surrounding two great events 70AD and the second coming.

    During this greater theme of instructions and warnings and encouragements to believers, the elect are mentioned in terminology based on their PROTECTION. The only time unsaved Israel is mentioned is in terminology surrounding their DESTRUCTION:
    “When you (believers) see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you (believers) will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those (believers) who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those (believers) in the city get out, and let those (believers) in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment (unsaved Israel) in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers (unsaved Israel)! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people
    (unsaved Israel-believers have escaped)
    . 24 They (unsaved Israel--they not you) will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations

    Once again my view is more true to the text. The OD focusses on judgment/persecution for unsaved Israel (Luke 21) but mainly deals with advice to the saved, and in this context the greater distress relating to the "world" (v21) and affecting the elect/chosen is mentioned. The theme of the OD focusses on the saved and not general Israel can be seen in phrases like this:
    *At that time many will turn away from the faith *I will give you words and wisdom *Everyone will hate you because of me *your redemption is drawing near *the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.


    Let me try to be clear. *All* statements are in a sense assertions, or "circular arguments." We always assume what we wish to prove. But in the technical application of "circular reasoning," I don't agree with you. There are other elements involved other than "the GT of Luke is the GT of Matthew, and the reverse." Much more than this, I'm saying that the evidence is that *all 3 versions are the same Discourse!* That is paramount! It is *you* who are arguing that *the same Discourse is expressed in 2 totally different message.* And I find that illogical.

    And so, I look for evidence that you claim is there, indicating that Matthew's GT is different from Luke's GT. And I just don't find it. Instead, I see a few different words, but essentially the same message.

    The Jewish People are going to lose their temple, their religion, their city, and then find themselves out among the nations, dispersed. Salvation for the nation awaits the return of the Son of Man. Same message in all 3 accounts. The Great Tribulation is the same Jewish Punishment in all 3 accounts, with the "elect" referring to the minority Jewish believers.
    I disagree here.
    The distress of Matthew 24 is after the gospel mandate is complete to the whole world (sequence advantage DD)
    Mentions the whole world (worldwide application advantage DD)
    Mentions possibility no-one would survive (worldwide application advantage DD)
    Mentions the distress for specifically the elect/chosen (slight advantage DD: chosen are the church)
    This is unlike the distress of Luke 21 which was a JUDGMENT on the unsaved and the saved were given instructions how to escape it.

    Thus the separation of the two distresses is obvious, the only reason you have to match them is your assumption that the OD wouldn't mention two distresses. Then using that assumption (note:circular reasoning) you try to find a reason why the diaspora could possibly be a greater distress than the events described in Revelation and latch onto your "time" theory that the diaspora was longer. Whilst all the time you know that in fact the GT will be a greater distress in this world (advantage DD)





    I'm not sure I understand all that? But okay, yes you are explaining some of your reasons, and I accept that. I don't agree, but I can accept your reasoning as legitimate and sound reasoning.

    But I've already explained above that I don't accept that the sequence in the Discourse determines the order of time necessarily. The whole idea of digressions, for example, disproves that. The original idea and the original questions concern the destruction of the temple. And the Discourse will always come back to that. However, in this case, an added element was added, concerning the 2nd Coming. And so, that has to figure into the Address, as well.
    This is my clear advantage. The fact that you so easily allow yourself to disregard order of events in the bible without in depth explanations opens yourself up to complete messing with the bible. Maybe Jesus came before Mary, if we change it up carefully. Maybe the second coming will occur before the rapture if we move certain verses around. At least admit that it is preferable to keep with order of events in most cases (will you admit that please? Advantage DD)




    And thus, the Great Tribulation applies to the Jewish nation as a whole, beginning with the initial event, the destruction of the temple. Is it any coincidence that the destruction of the temple begins the Great Tribulation of the Jewish People?

    This is precisely what happened in the Babylonian invasion of Israel! The temple was destroyed beginning a 70 year punishment of Israel. Their religion was taken away!

    But the punishment of the Jews after Christ came is *greater than* the punishment of the Babylonian Captivity. Jesus indicated they had sinned against a "greater light!" Thus, the Great Tribulation in the NT era is *greater than* the punishment of Hebrews in the OT era in terms of the expanse of time! The Jewish Diaspora has lasted nearly 2000 years! By contrast, the Babylonian Captivity lasted only 70 years.
    3 Verses refer to the punishment of Israel, the saved were instructed to escape that punishment.
    22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations.

    Matthew 24:15-51 continues this theme of advice to the saved.
    Generally I understand your view, I just feel that again and again you choose the less obvious interpretation of specific verses, and the less obvious general theme. The general theme is advice to the saved regarding two events , 70Ad and the second coming, just a few verses mention the diaspora which was a great distress for unsaved Israel. The GT will be a worldwide distress, and affect the elect directly too, unlike their historical prophetically inspired escape in 70AD.

    For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again. If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,813

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Hope things are better at home. As this post unfolds I will show you that the Olivet discourse focusses a tiny bit on unsaved Israel, and a lot on the saved/elect. The one distress is a JUDGMENT on sinful Israel, with specific instructions for saved Israel to escape that judgment. Unlike the greatest distress which also involves the elect.

    1) I need your specific opinion on Matthew 24:22 , how do you see these words and why? Why the comparison with the WORLD. Why could NO-ONE survive? The wording of the Matthew distress points to something world-wide, not localised.
    For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again. If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened
    "Survival" is related to the survival of *Israel*--it has nothing to do with the whole world.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    The digression in Luke is specifically explained using the phrase "before all this". My view has the advantage that it does not need to return to any themes, it merely unfolds in the order of events stated. Which is a clear advantage due to Occams razor, let's keep it simple unless there is a need to complicate it. And in EVERY issue, my view remains the more objective of the two, including this "sequence" argument.
    Try applying this idea to speeches in general. They are often filled with digressions. It is *not* natural to follow a time sequence from one topic to another.

    I know it doesn't apply well here, but look at it this way. Can you imagine that those who see the books of the Bible lined up in the way they are ordered to represent a time sequence from one book to the other? It would be overly simplistic to assume this. This is also true in speeches.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    I specifically quoted the verse in question, Matthew 24:22 "no-one would survive". Even v21 compares the distress to the WHOLE WORLD: For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.
    These verses point to a universal nature of the unequalled distress.
    No, this is not "universal" in the sense of applying to the *whole world!* This is saying that the *Jewish distress* of Jesus' time, and following, will be without precedent *in history.* This is an *age-long* Jewish Diaspora! The Bible had marked out specific Hebrew punishments as *time periods*in history.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    Your comparison with Luke 21:13 is not a conclusive argument, merely a subjective impression you have, the impression I get is v13 relates to Acts type events where for example Paul stands before judges and kings. And Matthew 24:14 relates specifically to the conclusion of the gospel being preached to the whole world. Once again my view is more objective here, because we both agree on Luke, yet Matthew is more clearly supporting my view on "the whole world"
    All 3 versions of the Olivet Discourse express a universal scope for the gospel. In Jesus' generation, the apostles were sent "before kings." These were not just kings in Israel, but also kings in other nations. Paul wanted to appear before Caesar.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    I do say the elect are believing Jews. They are the elect/chosen ones, not unbelieving Jews. I do not "merely assert" these differences, if you read my post, I gave 5 quotes (5 QUOTES)........ FIVE quotes........5 quotes to show that believing Jews were in mind during the Olivet discourse. The ONLY TIME unbelieving Israel is in mind is Luke 21:22-24 where the Roman Siege is mentioned and believers were told how to escape Jerusalem in time. Thus once again, my view of the OD is more in line with the theme which is instructions and warnings to believers surrounding two great events 70AD and the second coming.
    I have already said that the "elect" represents *believing Jews,* the "nascent church." Obviously, the Discourse is aimed at the believing Jews because only they believed Jesus. However, this does not mean that all Israel wasn't being addressed--it was! It was addressed from the start of the Address because Jesus said the symbol of their worship--the temple--would be destroyed. This was a judgment specifically against the Jewish People--against Israel. And this declaration is what sparked questions leading to the Olivet Discourse. All 3 versions identify this as the starting point for the Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    During this greater theme of instructions and warnings and encouragements to believers, the elect are mentioned in terminology based on their PROTECTION. The only time unsaved Israel is mentioned is in terminology surrounding their DESTRUCTION:
    “When you (believers) see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you (believers) will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those (believers) who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those (believers) in the city get out, and let those (believers) in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment (unsaved Israel) in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers (unsaved Israel)! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They (unsaved Israel--they not you) will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations
    Once again my view is more true to the text. The OD focusses on judgment/persecution for unsaved Israel (Luke 21) but mainly deals with advice to the saved, and in this context the greater distress relating to the "world" (v21) and affecting the elect/chosen is mentioned. The theme of the OD focusses on the saved and not general Israel can be seen in phrases like this:
    *At that time many will turn away from the faith *I will give you words and wisdom *Everyone will hate you because of me *your redemption is drawing near *the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.

    I disagree here.
    The distress of Matthew 24 is after the gospel mandate is complete to the whole world (sequence advantage DD)
    Mentions the whole world (worldwide application advantage DD)
    Mentions possibility no-one would survive (worldwide application advantage DD)
    Mentions the distress for specifically the elect/chosen (slight advantage DD: chosen are the church)
    This is unlike the distress of Luke 21 which was a JUDGMENT on the unsaved and the saved were given instructions how to escape it.
    I don't recognize a "universal scope" in Matthew and Mark, as opposed to a "local scope" in Luke. All 3 versions refer to the same things. What you see as "universal" is actually the Jewish experience as it extended out into the world during the gospel mission and in the Jewish dispersion after 70 AD. All 3 versions cover this.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    Thus the separation of the two distresses is obvious, the only reason you have to match them is your assumption that the OD wouldn't mention two distresses. Then using that assumption (note:circular reasoning) you try to find a reason why the diaspora could possibly be a greater distress than the events described in Revelation and latch onto your "time" theory that the diaspora was longer. Whilst all the time you know that in fact the GT will be a greater distress in this world (advantage DD)
    I don't agree that there is an obvious mention of 2 different kinds of "great distress." All 3 versions speak of the exact same "great distress." Any variations in the versions simply help to explain what the "great distress" is.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    This is my clear advantage. The fact that you so easily allow yourself to disregard order of events in the bible without in depth explanations opens yourself up to complete messing with the bible. Maybe Jesus came before Mary, if we change it up carefully. Maybe the second coming will occur before the rapture if we move certain verses around. At least admit that it is preferable to keep with order of events in most cases (will you admit that please? Advantage DD)
    There is no such thing as an assumed "time sequence" in any speech. As I said, there are often digressions that betray any sense of an "absolute time sequence." Have you ever heard a speech where every event mentioned in order of sequence are in chronological order? I haven't. I've taken a number of history courses in my life. Never has a history professor expressed events during a class in perfect sequential order, as in a time line!

    I would agree that many narratives have a chronological implication. A "flashback" is more rare than a simple chronological sequence in a movie. However, even a normal movie, without flashbacks, do not express every single statement as a matter of perfect chronological sequence. For example, halfway through a movie taking place in the period of the French Revolution, someone may refer back to the ancient Romans. The idea of a perfect chronological sequence in every speech is completely absurd!

    You tend to read the Olivet Discourse as if it is a simple *list* of events to happen, as if this Address is given for the purpose of prognosticating. And I don't believe it was given for that purpose. Rather, it was given for the purpose of soliciting our spiritual preparation throughout our lives.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    3 Verses refer to the punishment of Israel, the saved were instructed to escape that punishment.
    22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations.

    Matthew 24:15-51 continues this theme of advice to the saved.
    Generally I understand your view, I just feel that again and again you choose the less obvious interpretation of specific verses, and the less obvious general theme. The general theme is advice to the saved regarding two events , 70Ad and the second coming, just a few verses mention the diaspora which was a great distress for unsaved Israel. The GT will be a worldwide distress, and affect the elect directly too, unlike their historical prophetically inspired escape in 70AD.

    For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again. If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened
    I'm working on some better answers for you. I trust you're open to more input?

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,813

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    I disagree here.
    The distress of Matthew 24 is after the gospel mandate is complete to the whole world (sequence advantage DD)
    Mentions the whole world (worldwide application advantage DD)
    Mentions possibility no-one would survive (worldwide application advantage DD)
    Mentions the distress for specifically the elect/chosen (slight advantage DD: chosen are the church)
    This is unlike the distress of Luke 21 which was a JUDGMENT on the unsaved and the saved were given instructions how to escape it.

    Thus the separation of the two distresses is obvious, the only reason you have to match them is your assumption that the OD wouldn't mention two distresses. Then using that assumption (note:circular reasoning) you try to find a reason why the diaspora could possibly be a greater distress than the events described in Revelation and latch onto your "time" theory that the diaspora was longer. Whilst all the time you know that in fact the GT will be a greater distress in this world (advantage DD)
    Wouldn't it be nice if we could grade our own papers in school? Wouldn't it be nice if we could referee our own competitions, or judge our own trial?
    Funny guy, you are!

    Anyway, I appreciate the arguments, and I will indeed try to answer the points specifically. I was working on comparing nearly every point of the 3 versions of the Olivet Discourse with one another, in order to prove that they are saying *exactly the same things,* and not different stories.

    1) Reference to completion of the gospel *before* mention of the AoD does not necessarily mean that the gospel mission is completed before the AoD takes place. I may, for example, mention in sequence both world wars of the 20th century, WW1 and WW2. In mentioning WW1, I may choose to elaborate on how the League of Nations evolved into today's United Nations, before mentioning WW2. That obviously doesn't mean that the UN was created *before* WW2 started, simply because it is mentioned *before* WW2!

    Let me show you how the 3 different versions view this "gospel mission," to show that Matthew and Mark are *not* universal, while Luke is *local.*

    Matt 24.9 “Then you will be handed over to be *persecuted* and put to death, and you will be *hated* by all nations because of me. 10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will *betray* and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of *wickedness*, the *love of most will grow cold*, 13 but the one who *stands firm to the end will be saved*. 14 And *this gospel of the kingdom will be preached* in the whole world as a *testimony* to all nations, and then the end will come.

    Matthew: in this account there will be
    1) persecution of Jesus' disciples by all nations
    2) universal hatred for believers
    3) increased wickedness among the Jews
    4) believers enduring until salvation at prophetic fulfillment,
    5) gospel preached to all nations

    Mark 13.9 “You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and *flogged* in the synagogues. On account of me you will *stand before governors and kings as witnesses* to them. 10 And *the gospel must first be preached* to all nations. 11 Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just *say whatever is given you* at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit. 12 “Brother will *betray* brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 13 Everyone will *hate* because of me, but the one who *stands firm to the end will be saved*.

    Mark: In this account there will be:
    1) persecution by Jewish religion and kings
    2) standing before kings as witnesses
    3) gospel preached to all nations, saying what is given at trial
    4) Jewish family betrayal
    5) universal hatred for believers
    6) believers standing firm for salvation

    Luke 21.12 “But before all this, they will seize you and *persecute* you. They will hand you over to synagogues and put you in prison, and you will be *brought before kings and governors*, and all on account of my name. 13 And so you will *bear testimony* to me. 14 But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. 15 For I will *give you words and wisdom* that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict. 16 You will be *betrayed* even by parents, brothers and sisters, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. 17 Everyone will *hate* you because of me. 18 But not a hair of your head will perish. 19 *Stand firm, and you will win life*.

    Luke: in this account there will be...
    1) persecution by Jewish religion and kings
    2) bearing testimony to kings, being given words
    3) Jewish family betrayal
    4) universal hatred for believers
    5) believers standing firm for salvation.

    All 3 accounts agree that Jesus' disciples and believers would suffer persecution both in Israel among family and universally in all nations. Mark and Luke agree on the need for an *inspired* testimony, which agrees with Matthew's account that this is a believers' testimony to the living message of Jesus, or "the gospel." In Luke the universal message of the gospel is simply defined in its real context--bearing witness to Jesus before kings, during persecution, which is a *universal proclamation of the gospel.*

    There is obviously no universal/local dichotomy here among the 3 versions of the Olivet Discourse. The portion dealing with the universal proclamation of the gospel is in all 3 versions.

    I will try to continue with point #2 next...

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,813

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    Mentions possibility no-one would survive (worldwide application advantage DD)
    Matthew 24.15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. 18 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.
    22 “If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time.
    Matthew 24.26 “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28 Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather."

    1) an abomination mentioned by Daniel will stand in the holy place to destroy it
    2) people in the countryside of Judea will flee to the mountains, without time to prepare by gathering or returning to gather things, endangering pregnant women, in a time difficult to brave weather and religious customs
    3) an unrepeatable great distress, which without termination on behalf of believers would destroy Israel
    4) false Christs and false prophets to deceive believers within and without
    5) the coming of the Son of Man like lightning at the place of a carcass, where vultures gather.

    Mark 13.14 “When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 15 Let no one on the housetop go down or enter the house to take anything out. 16 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 17 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 18 Pray that this will not take place in winter, 19 because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again.
    20 “If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them. 21 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. 22 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 23 So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time."

    1) an abomination discernible by study (Daniel) will stand inappropriately (in the holy place) to destroy
    2) people in the countryside of Judea will flee to the mountains, without time to prepare by gathering or returning to gather things, endangering pregnant women, in an unseasonable time (winter or sabbath)
    3) an unrepeatable great distress, which without termination on behalf of believers would destroy Israel
    4) false Christs and false prophets to deceive believers.

    Luke 17.22 Then he said to his disciples, “The time is coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, but you will not see it. 23 People will tell you, ‘There he is!’ or ‘Here he is!’ Do not go running off after them."
    Luke 21.20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

    1) Jerusalem surrounded by armies (desecration of the holy place) to destroy
    2) people in the countryside of Judea, and in Jerusalem, will flee to the mountains, a time of punishment, endangering pregnant women--a great distress against the Jewish People, causing an age-long period of suffering for Jerusalem and the Jewish People following their destruction.

    Matthew and Mark basically agree, except that Mark explains a "standing in the holy place" to be a "standing where an abomination does not belong.

    Luke adds even more detail by explaining that the "abomination" represents "armies," and that "standing in the holy place" means the "encirclement of armies around Jerusalem."

    Furthermore, Luke explains the "great distress of Israel" to be the fall of Jerusalem by an invading series of armies, destroying Israel and leading to an age-long Jewish diaspora. The fact this Jewish punishment is described as "age-long" by Luke seems to be the equivalent of Matthew and Mark saying that the distress had to be "cut short" due to its great length of time.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,813

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    "Standing in the holy place" appears to be elaborated on more fully, or explained, by Luke. It is the presence of armies surrounding Jerusalem. In this sense, Roman armies are *in the holy place,* ie in the location of Jerusalem. After all, this is not just about the temple, but about the city of Jerusalem as well. Daniel 9 indicates that in the time of Messiah, an army, or "people," would come against Jerusalem and the temple to destroy it, or to "desolate" it.

    Thus, this is not just about the temple as the "holy place," but more, about the city of Jerusalem as the "holy place." "Holy place" is a term being used more as a *region* than as a technical application to a *building.* The Roman Army was in the *region* of Jerusalem and the temple, rather than in the temple itself.

    Luke is *not* saying anything different from what Matthew or Mark said. I would suggest that Jesus, in the actual incident, spoke of both things in the same context--the "standing in the holy place," and the "encirclement of Jerusalem by armies," were both mentioned. In speaking of the latter Luke assumed the former was being spoken of, as well.

    They both mean the same exact thing, that abominable Roman armies would stand in the holy area of Jerusalem, in the general locality where the temple was located. As such they were the "abomination that causes desolation."

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,490

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    "Survival" is related to the survival of *Israel*--it has nothing to do with the whole world.



    Try applying this idea to speeches in general. They are often filled with digressions. It is *not* natural to follow a time sequence from one topic to another.

    I know it doesn't apply well here, but look at it this way. Can you imagine that those who see the books of the Bible lined up in the way they are ordered to represent a time sequence from one book to the other? It would be overly simplistic to assume this. This is also true in speeches.



    No, this is not "universal" in the sense of applying to the *whole world!* This is saying that the *Jewish distress* of Jesus' time, and following, will be without precedent *in history.* This is an *age-long* Jewish Diaspora! The Bible had marked out specific Hebrew punishments as *time periods*in history.



    All 3 versions of the Olivet Discourse express a universal scope for the gospel. In Jesus' generation, the apostles were sent "before kings." These were not just kings in Israel, but also kings in other nations. Paul wanted to appear before Caesar.



    I have already said that the "elect" represents *believing Jews,* the "nascent church." Obviously, the Discourse is aimed at the believing Jews because only they believed Jesus. However, this does not mean that all Israel wasn't being addressed--it was! It was addressed from the start of the Address because Jesus said the symbol of their worship--the temple--would be destroyed. This was a judgment specifically against the Jewish People--against Israel. And this declaration is what sparked questions leading to the Olivet Discourse. All 3 versions identify this as the starting point for the Discourse.



    I don't recognize a "universal scope" in Matthew and Mark, as opposed to a "local scope" in Luke. All 3 versions refer to the same things. What you see as "universal" is actually the Jewish experience as it extended out into the world during the gospel mission and in the Jewish dispersion after 70 AD. All 3 versions cover this.



    I don't agree that there is an obvious mention of 2 different kinds of "great distress." All 3 versions speak of the exact same "great distress." Any variations in the versions simply help to explain what the "great distress" is.



    There is no such thing as an assumed "time sequence" in any speech. As I said, there are often digressions that betray any sense of an "absolute time sequence." Have you ever heard a speech where every event mentioned in order of sequence are in chronological order? I haven't. I've taken a number of history courses in my life. Never has a history professor expressed events during a class in perfect sequential order, as in a time line!

    I would agree that many narratives have a chronological implication. A "flashback" is more rare than a simple chronological sequence in a movie. However, even a normal movie, without flashbacks, do not express every single statement as a matter of perfect chronological sequence. For example, halfway through a movie taking place in the period of the French Revolution, someone may refer back to the ancient Romans. The idea of a perfect chronological sequence in every speech is completely absurd!

    You tend to read the Olivet Discourse as if it is a simple *list* of events to happen, as if this Address is given for the purpose of prognosticating. And I don't believe it was given for that purpose. Rather, it was given for the purpose of soliciting our spiritual preparation throughout our lives.



    I'm working on some better answers for you. I trust you're open to more input?
    I am glad you are working on better answers because currently your answers are more based on opinion than giving any clear interpretation advantage.

    1) Re:Survival: Responding to Matthew 24:22 you say that "Survival" is related to the survival of *Israel*--it has nothing to do with the whole world.". You also say "No, this is not "universal" in the sense of applying to the *whole world!* This is saying that the *Jewish distress* of Jesus' time, and following, will be without precedent *in history.* ". These are your opinions, no exegesis of the verse is given by you.
    For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved
    The actual wording refers to NO FLESH in context of a tribulation of WORLD COMPARISON (this tribulation is associated with extent of death/flesh, NOT time). In contrast to your localised time based view.

    2) Sure people digress, are you implying that a mingled/mixed view of a set of events is ALWAYS at an advantage to a view that is straightforward? (some missing deductive reasoning here). Give me your reasoning why Matthew 24:15-25 is BETTER interpreted by moving it earlier than keeping it's sequence?

    3) Regarding Matthew 24:14 you say "All 3 versions of the Olivet Discourse express a universal scope for the gospel. In Jesus' generation, the apostles were sent "before kings." These were not just kings in Israel, but also kings in other nations. Paul wanted to appear before Caesar."
    You say that , but we know that the first century Acts of the apostles were mainly in the Meditteranean area. As opposed to Matthew 24:14 which mentions the whole world. The two accounts match at first, but then the Matthew account goes further into a worldwide application in context of "enduring to the "end" mentioned in v13.

    I don't recognize a "universal scope" in Matthew and Mark, as opposed to a "local scope" in Luke. All 3 versions refer to the same things. What you see as "universal" is actually the Jewish experience as it extended out into the world during the gospel mission and in the Jewish dispersion after 70 AD. All 3 versions cover this.

    I don't agree that there is an obvious mention of 2 different kinds of "great distress." All 3 versions speak of the exact same "great distress." Any variations in the versions simply help to explain what the "great distress" is.
    I gave you FOUR reasons why the two distresses are different, and your response is two opinions without any logical/scriptural backing? These are the reasons I gave that the two distresses are different:
    The distress of Matthew 24:15-25 is sequentially AFTER the gospel mandate is complete to the whole world (you need good reasons to digress)
    Mentions the whole world (v21) and the possibility no-one would survive (v22) (worldwide distress, not just Israel)
    v22 mentions the distress for specifically the elect/chosen (unlike the first century distress/JUDGEMENT only on apostate Israel, the elect escaped)

    You keep trying to apply a distress that was a judgment for apostate Israel (the elect escaped), to a later distress of a worldwide scope that affects the elect:
    When you (believers) see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you (believers) will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those (believers) who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those (believers) in the city get out, and let those (believers) in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment (unsaved Israel) in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers (unsaved Israel)! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They (unsaved Israel--they not you) will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,490

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Wouldn't it be nice if we could grade our own papers in school? Wouldn't it be nice if we could referee our own competitions, or judge our own trial?
    Funny guy, you are!

    Anyway, I appreciate the arguments, and I will indeed try to answer the points specifically. I was working on comparing nearly every point of the 3 versions of the Olivet Discourse with one another, in order to prove that they are saying *exactly the same things,* and not different stories.

    1) Reference to completion of the gospel *before* mention of the AoD does not necessarily mean that the gospel mission is completed before the AoD takes place. I may, for example, mention in sequence both world wars of the 20th century, WW1 and WW2. In mentioning WW1, I may choose to elaborate on how the League of Nations evolved into today's United Nations, before mentioning WW2. That obviously doesn't mean that the UN was created *before* WW2 started, simply because it is mentioned *before* WW2!

    Let me show you how the 3 different versions view this "gospel mission," to show that Matthew and Mark are *not* universal, while Luke is *local.*

    Matt 24.9 “Then you will be handed over to be *persecuted* and put to death, and you will be *hated* by all nations because of me. 10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will *betray* and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of *wickedness*, the *love of most will grow cold*, 13 but the one who *stands firm to the end will be saved*. 14 And *this gospel of the kingdom will be preached* in the whole world as a *testimony* to all nations, and then the end will come.

    Matthew: in this account there will be
    1) persecution of Jesus' disciples by all nations
    2) universal hatred for believers
    3) increased wickedness among the Jews
    4) believers enduring until salvation at prophetic fulfillment,
    5) gospel preached to all nations

    Mark 13.9 “You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and *flogged* in the synagogues. On account of me you will *stand before governors and kings as witnesses* to them. 10 And *the gospel must first be preached* to all nations. 11 Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just *say whatever is given you* at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit. 12 “Brother will *betray* brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 13 Everyone will *hate* because of me, but the one who *stands firm to the end will be saved*.

    Mark: In this account there will be:
    1) persecution by Jewish religion and kings
    2) standing before kings as witnesses
    3) gospel preached to all nations, saying what is given at trial
    4) Jewish family betrayal
    5) universal hatred for believers
    6) believers standing firm for salvation

    Luke 21.12 “But before all this, they will seize you and *persecute* you. They will hand you over to synagogues and put you in prison, and you will be *brought before kings and governors*, and all on account of my name. 13 And so you will *bear testimony* to me. 14 But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. 15 For I will *give you words and wisdom* that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict. 16 You will be *betrayed* even by parents, brothers and sisters, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. 17 Everyone will *hate* you because of me. 18 But not a hair of your head will perish. 19 *Stand firm, and you will win life*.

    Luke: in this account there will be...
    1) persecution by Jewish religion and kings
    2) bearing testimony to kings, being given words
    3) Jewish family betrayal
    4) universal hatred for believers
    5) believers standing firm for salvation.

    All 3 accounts agree that Jesus' disciples and believers would suffer persecution both in Israel among family and universally in all nations. Mark and Luke agree on the need for an *inspired* testimony, which agrees with Matthew's account that this is a believers' testimony to the living message of Jesus, or "the gospel." In Luke the universal message of the gospel is simply defined in its real context--bearing witness to Jesus before kings, during persecution, which is a *universal proclamation of the gospel.*

    There is obviously no universal/local dichotomy here among the 3 versions of the Olivet Discourse. The portion dealing with the universal proclamation of the gospel is in all 3 versions.

    I will try to continue with point #2 next...
    Yes I agree that there is no universal dichotomy between the 3 versions of the Olivet discourse. I never implied anything else. Some things in Luke eg v24 are not mentioned in the other accounts, this however does not create any dichotomy between the accounts.

    The difference in Matthew 24 is that after the matching events that you list; v13 and v14 are heading towards the end and the conclusion. You would like to move v15-25 back before v13/14 but I see no need to digress, unless you show me that digressing gives a distinct interpretative advantage.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,292
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    "Standing in the holy place" appears to be elaborated on more fully, or explained, by Luke. It is the presence of armies surrounding Jerusalem.
    Do you mean Jesus elaborated more fully? In which case why did Matthew and Mark require the reader to understand rather than give the explanation Jesus gave?
    If you mean that Luke COMPLETELY interpreted what Jesus said, writing words that Jesus NEVER said, yet Luke wrote them AS IF Jesus had said them, then you are actually saying that Luke is NOT a credible writer as he writes things of his own understanding but claiming them as being what was reported to him by eye witnesses.

    It is abundantly clear to ANYONE who actually treats the gospel authors with respect, that Jesus did NOT say that an army outside Jerusalem was the SAME as an AoD, for then they would ALL have noted this as being an equivalent, or simply noted the explanation, and certainly NONE of them would have required the reader to understand as Jesus has given an explanation.
    Therefore the FALSE CLAIM that Jesus said BOTH is self-evident, and it is also then self-evident that Luke is NOT referring to the SAME event as that noted in Matthew 24:15.

    Luke 21:20 was amazingly fulfilled in 66 AD, and then the army left ALLOWING people to flee. This was not the case in 70 AD.

    NONE of the ECFs associate Matt 24:15 with 66 AD, but EITHER with 70 AD when Jerusalem and the temple was destroyed, OR as an event yet to happen.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,490

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Matthew 24.15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. 18 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.
    22 “If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time.
    Matthew 24.26 “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28 Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather."

    1) an abomination mentioned by Daniel will stand in the holy place to destroy it
    2) people in the countryside of Judea will flee to the mountains, without time to prepare by gathering or returning to gather things, endangering pregnant women, in a time difficult to brave weather and religious customs
    3) an unrepeatable great distress, which without termination on behalf of believers would destroy Israel
    4) false Christs and false prophets to deceive believers within and without
    5) the coming of the Son of Man like lightning at the place of a carcass, where vultures gather.

    Mark 13.14 “When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 15 Let no one on the housetop go down or enter the house to take anything out. 16 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 17 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 18 Pray that this will not take place in winter, 19 because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again.
    20 “If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them. 21 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. 22 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 23 So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time."

    1) an abomination discernible by study (Daniel) will stand inappropriately (in the holy place) to destroy
    2) people in the countryside of Judea will flee to the mountains, without time to prepare by gathering or returning to gather things, endangering pregnant women, in an unseasonable time (winter or sabbath)
    3) an unrepeatable great distress, which without termination on behalf of believers would destroy Israel
    4) false Christs and false prophets to deceive believers.

    Luke 17.22 Then he said to his disciples, “The time is coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, but you will not see it. 23 People will tell you, ‘There he is!’ or ‘Here he is!’ Do not go running off after them."
    Luke 21.20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

    1) Jerusalem surrounded by armies (desecration of the holy place) to destroy
    2) people in the countryside of Judea, and in Jerusalem, will flee to the mountains, a time of punishment, endangering pregnant women--a great distress against the Jewish People, causing an age-long period of suffering for Jerusalem and the Jewish People following their destruction.

    Matthew and Mark basically agree, except that Mark explains a "standing in the holy place" to be a "standing where an abomination does not belong.

    Luke adds even more detail by explaining that the "abomination" represents "armies," and that "standing in the holy place" means the "encirclement of armies around Jerusalem."

    Furthermore, Luke explains the "great distress of Israel" to be the fall of Jerusalem by an invading series of armies, destroying Israel and leading to an age-long Jewish diaspora. The fact this Jewish punishment is described as "age-long" by Luke seems to be the equivalent of Matthew and Mark saying that the distress had to be "cut short" due to its great length of time.
    Here's some faulty deductive reasoning:
    Logic 1) Luke mentions a distress to apostate Israel which excludes the elect, Matthew mentions a distress to the whole world that includes the elect, but the word "DISTRESS" is mentioned in both so they have to be the same distress

    Logic 2) An army surrounds Jerusalem 2000 years ago, therefore flee to the mountains. After the gospel is preached to all nations (v14) an evil thing is set up in Jerusalem, therefore flee to the mountains. Therefore the surrounding army outside Jerusalem is the evil thing set up in Jerusalem Both these events are distressful for Jerusalem therefore the two distresses must be the same distress even though the one is an immediate judgment on apostate Israel and the other is a 3.5 year persecution for the church

    Let me try again to get into this way of thinking. The pirates sank the ship during a storm, a whale sank the ship during a storm. There are more than one matching event therefore pirates are whales, easy conclusion for Randyk. (Just joking around for illustration purposes)

    There is another way of thinking here that I believe is more true to prophecy, that when a prophet is prophesying about soon to come events, he also sometimes enters into a second prophesy about similar dramatic events far in the future. Even more so in the OD when the disciples thought they were asking about two aspects of one event, but Jesus answers them with two completely different events both which threaten the true church in Jerusalem.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,813

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    22 And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved[/COLOR]
    The actual wording refers to NO FLESH in context of a tribulation of WORLD COMPARISON (this tribulation is associated with extent of death/flesh, NOT time). In contrast to your localised time based view.
    The *context* matters. "No flesh would survive" is in reference to the Jewish People because Jesus had begun the Address by declaring that the temple would be destroyed. And as he developed this theme, he referred back to Daniel's 70 Weeks Prophecy, where it was declared that "the city and the sanctuary" would be "desolated." The "abomination of desolation" was aimed at Israel, and threatened their existence. This is not "universal flesh" being described, but rather, "Israel's flesh."

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    Sure people digress, are you implying that a mingled/mixed view of a set of events is ALWAYS at an advantage to a view that is straightforward? (some missing deductive reasoning here). Give me your reasoning why Matthew 24:15-25 is BETTER interpreted by moving it earlier than keeping it's sequence?
    No, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that there is *no fixed chronological sequence* in events mentioned in any speech! I may make a speech right now, and take you through the Communist Revolution, WW1, WW2, and following. But in discussing WW1 I may mention the League of Nations as a precedent for the future development of the United Nations after WW2. There is *no fixed chronology in mentioning events in a speech!* It's not about any "advantage." The reality is that although chronological sequences are given all the time, there is *nothing that prohibits intermediate reference to things out of chronological sequence!* The only thing to prohibit such a thing would be a chronological list of events, and this is *not a speech!*

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Regarding Matthew 24:14 you say "All 3 versions of the Olivet Discourse express a universal scope for the gospel. In Jesus' generation, the apostles were sent "before kings." These were not just kings in Israel, but also kings in other nations. Paul wanted to appear before Caesar."
    You say that , but we know that the first century Acts of the apostles were mainly in the Meditteranean area. As opposed to Matthew 24:14 which mentions the whole world. The two accounts match at first, but then the Matthew account goes further into a worldwide application in context of "enduring to the "end" mentioned in v13.
    The "whole world" is mentioned as an experience that includes but transcends the experience of Jesus' Disciples. In the Disciples' day, the "whole world" was the Roman World. But since the mission of the gospel would extend until the end of the age, the "whole world" is relative to the experience of future generations as well. In other words, for the Disciples the "whole world" meant the Roman World, and for future generations of Christians the "whole world" meant the whole world around them. The idea was that Christianity was to reach out to all kings, as time progressed. This was to begin in the experience of the Disciples, but was to continue until all nations were reached. All 3 versions indicate the same thing. The experience of the Disciples was the model for all generations of Christianity.

    The proof for this is not just an opinion. This Discourse was specifically addressed to Jesus' generation, and described their own experience. But inasmuch as it referred to future events, the experience of the Disciples were a model for future Christian generations.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    You keep trying to apply a distress that was a judgment for apostate Israel (the elect escaped), to a later distress of a worldwide scope that affects the elect...
    The distress *in all 3 versions* applied to apostate Israel because the *context* for the Olivet Discourse was the judgment of God against the Jews, beginning with the destruction of the temple. This was a "great distress" for Jews! This is not opinion. This is fact. Luke makes it clear. To assume that the *same Discourse* in Matthew's version and in Mark's version somehow mentions a different "great distress" is a very poor argument, in my judgment. Really, would the same Discourse do this? No.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,813

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Do you mean Jesus elaborated more fully? In which case why did Matthew and Mark require the reader to understand rather than give the explanation Jesus gave?
    If you mean that Luke COMPLETELY interpreted what Jesus said, writing words that Jesus NEVER said, yet Luke wrote them AS IF Jesus had said them, then you are actually saying that Luke is NOT a credible writer as he writes things of his own understanding but claiming them as being what was reported to him by eye witnesses.
    I'm saying that Matthew, Mark, and Luke are all credible writers who quoted Jesus' actual words. They may or may not have been putting what Jesus said in their own words, or these may all have literally been words that Jesus said in a much longer speech than was actually recorded.

    What we do know is that there was an order to the speech in real time history, and that all 3 authors maintained very close to the same sequence of things mentioned. And in all 3 versions there is a point in the speech where either the AoD is described or the encirclement of Jerusalem by armies, which are Roman armies.

    The logical deduction is that the Roman armies *are* the AoD! The Roman armies were an abomination, standing in the vicinity of the temple, and they were bent in *desolating* it. They were, quite literally, the Abomination of Desolation! Why should we think these were different entities?

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    It is abundantly clear to ANYONE who actually treats the gospel authors with respect, that Jesus did NOT say that an army outside Jerusalem was the SAME as an AoD, for then they would ALL have noted this as being an equivalent, or simply noted the explanation, and certainly NONE of them would have required the reader to understand as Jesus has given an explanation.
    Therefore the FALSE CLAIM that Jesus said BOTH is self-evident, and it is also then self-evident that Luke is NOT referring to the SAME event as that noted in Matthew 24:15.
    Sorry, I completely disagree with you. It seems clear to me that the Roman Armies were, in fact, the AoD! This is self-evident *to me,* and to most of the Church Fathers, I believe. It was also very evident to a number of important commentators in history.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    Luke 21:20 was amazingly fulfilled in 66 AD, and then the army left ALLOWING people to flee. This was not the case in 70 AD.

    NONE of the ECFs associate Matt 24:15 with 66 AD, but EITHER with 70 AD when Jerusalem and the temple was destroyed, OR as an event yet to happen.
    I posted the Church Father quotes on this, but apparently they have been erased. I believe the majority of them saw the 66-70 AD Jewish War as somehow the fulfillment of the AoD.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,813

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Here's some faulty deductive reasoning:
    Logic 1) Luke mentions a distress to apostate Israel which excludes the elect, Matthew mentions a distress to the whole world that includes the elect, but the word "DISTRESS" is mentioned in both so they have to be the same distress
    My argument is that Matthew and Luke both mention a "great distress" which *includes the elect believers among the Jews.* Luke's version does *not* exclude the believing Jews!

    "When you see," then "flee" is written to Jesus' Disciples, the elect Jews! In Matthew and in Mark, the thing they are "to see" is the AoD. In Luke, the thing they are "to see" is the Roman Armies. They are the *same thing!* And in all cases, the believing Jews, or Jesus' Disciples, were to "flee to the mountains." In Luke's version, Jewish believers are not being ignored. Rather, they are being addressed *in the same way* that they are being addressed in the other versions.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    Logic 2) An army surrounds Jerusalem 2000 years ago, therefore flee to the mountains. After the gospel is preached to all nations (v14) an evil thing is set up in Jerusalem, therefore flee to the mountains.
    This is not how I read what is being said. It is *not* said that *after* the gospel is finished being preached to all nations, then an army will surround Jerusalem, and Jesus' Disciples, ie his generation, would "flee to the mountains." On the contrary, we are told that after the gospel is finished being preached in the whole world, then the "end will come." That is, prophecy is completed for Israel with the coming of Christ to save them. This is the Jewish Hope, in the context of biblical prophecy.

    What happens in Jesus' generation is a set of signs that *precedes* the surrounding of Jerusalem by armies. We know that because Jesus listed a number of signs that his generation and his Disciples would experience, constituting "birth pains" leading to this event.

    That is, these initial signs were warning signs of the approaching destruction of the temple. Jesus was, after all, addressing the question of *when* the temple would be destroyed.

    You completely are *losing this context* in your own version of the Discourse! Jesus' direct answer to the question of *when* it would happen was "it will happen in *this generation!* "

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    Therefore the surrounding army outside Jerusalem is the evil thing set up in Jerusalem Both these events are distressful for Jerusalem therefore the two distresses must be the same distress even though the one is an immediate judgment on apostate Israel and the other is a 3.5 year persecution for the church
    Just to remind you, my argument is *not* that the "great distress" is the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Rather, it is the *Jewish Diaspora* of the *entire NT age! This only began after 70 AD!

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    Let me try again to get into this way of thinking. The pirates sank the ship during a storm, a whale sank the ship during a storm. There are more than one matching event therefore pirates are whales, easy conclusion for Randyk. (Just joking around for illustration purposes)

    There is another way of thinking here that I believe is more true to prophecy, that when a prophet is prophesying about soon to come events, he also sometimes enters into a second prophesy about similar dramatic events far in the future. Even more so in the OD when the disciples thought they were asking about two aspects of one event, but Jesus answers them with two completely different events both which threaten the true church in Jerusalem.
    This is "dual fulfillment," which I reject. This kind of interpretation ends up with all kinds of problems. When do we ever speak this way, as a practical matter?

    We may allude to other things, and I do think the Bible does this. For example, many prophecies of Jesus' ministry was *alluded to* in ancient biblical events, such as in the sacrifice of Isaac.

    But saying 2 separate things at the same time is irrational. The AoD and the Great Distress can only refer to the fall of Jerusalem and to the Jewish Diaspora, in my opinion.

    It may *allude to* the Antichrist and to the tribulation of a future era, but these things are not in this particular context. The Olivet Discourse is all about the fall of the temple in *Jesus' generation,* and about the Jewish experience after that, leading up to the Jewish Hope.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,292
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I'm saying that Matthew, Mark, and Luke are all credible writers who quoted Jesus' actual words. They may or may not have been putting what Jesus said in their own words, or these may all have literally been words that Jesus said in a much longer speech than was actually recorded.
    "May or may not been putting Jesus words in their own words"?
    If you CANNOT believe they accurately put what Jesus said then what is your basis of truth for the gospels?
    When Luke wrote his own words, and put things in his own order he did NOT put them as being from the mouth of God. Nor did Matthew or Mark.

    What we do know is that there was an order to the speech in real time history, and that all 3 authors maintained very close to the same sequence of things mentioned. And in all 3 versions there is a point in the speech where either the AoD is described or the encirclement of Jerusalem by armies, which are Roman armies.
    Actually no we don't know that.
    It is YOUR assumption which isn't supported by what was actually said.

    The logical deduction is that the Roman armies *are* the AoD! The Roman armies were an abomination, standing in the vicinity of the temple, and they were bent in *desolating* it. They were, quite literally, the Abomination of Desolation! Why should we think these were different entities?
    Nope, this is NOT a logical deduction UNLESS you have Luke rewriting what Jesus actually in his OWN words, but then claim them as spoken by Jesus.
    The LOGICAL deduction is that there are TWO signs, as Jesus spoke of TWO signs.

    Sorry, I completely disagree with you. It seems clear to me that the Roman Armies were, in fact, the AoD! This is self-evident *to me,* and to most of the Church Fathers, I believe. It was also very evident to a number of important commentators in history.
    Of course you do. This is NOT self-evident to anyone, and your repeated claims that this is what the ECFs believed has been shown false previously.
    What EXACTLY in my reasoning are you saying is faulty?
    You haven't actually clarified.
    Are you saying that Matthew and Mark would DELIBERATELY make things UNCLEAR even though Jesus has TOLD them what the AoD was?
    This shows you really are treating the authors with contempt, that they are deliberately trying to hide things.

    I posted the Church Father quotes on this, but apparently they have been erased. I believe the majority of them saw the 66-70 AD Jewish War as somehow the fulfillment of the AoD.
    Not one of them saw 66 AD as the fulfillment. Some saw 70 AD as the fulfillment of the AoD, but then they had it AFTER the temple was destroyed.
    You don;t actually agree with the ECFs who state this and so claim an agreement based on proximity rather than actuality.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,813

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    I emailed my brother today, in discussion of this subject. He asks good questions, and does so in a *good spirit.* You might be interested in the questions I relayed to him, along with my commentary on some of the issues we discussed. He was confused over my supposed separation between the sighting of the Abomination of the Desolation and the Desolation itself, which was "near."

    (To my brother)
    I've heard this before--I'm not sure where? The AoD in Matthew and Mark was something immediately visible in their experience. The Encirclement of Jerusalem by Roman Armies was also immediately visible in their experience, because the Roman Army was, in fact, the AoD! But the Desolation part of the AoD was *not* immediately visible in their experience, but would at some point be "near."

    I believe that Jesus wanted his disciples to recognize when the Abomination had arrived, so that they would know the Desolation is "near." They were to be looking for the sign of the Abomination that *will cause* Desolation in the near future. In other words, 1st the Abomination, and afterwards, the Desolation. The thing that would be "near" would follow the actual appearance of the Abomination. Jesus wanted his Disciples to "see" the Abomination so that they could take action to avoid the approaching Desolation. One would happen in 66 AD, and the other would happen in 70 AD.

    So there are several language, or word, questions in this that you may be able to help me with.
    1) Is the Abomination referring legitimately to the Roman Army?
    2) Does the Abomination and the Desolation legitimately show up at different times?

    Although the other reference to Abomination of Desolation shows up in Daniel in connection with the activities of Antiochus 4, it is questionable how "Abomination" is being used there? For example, does the Abomination refer to the sacrifice of a pig in the temple, or to the placement of an idol in the temple? Or, is it the fact that Antiochus 4 leads a pagan Army to take control of an area reserved to the Jewish priesthood, namely the city of Jerusalem and the temple?

    I believe it is due to the conflation of Abomination with temple desecration that prevents us from viewing the Roman Army as an Abomination outside of the city walls. But if we see the Roman Army as the Abomination standing as an Army around the holy city of Jerusalem, then we may be able to recognize the association between the Roman Army and Antiochus 4. Both were invading armies that sought to destroy Jerusalem and the temple worship.

    In history we do see a time period in between the siege of Cestius Gallus in 66 AD and the siege of Titus in 70 AD, allowing for Jewish believers to escape to Pella. When Jesus told his Disciples, and their followers, to "flee to the mountains" after spotting the AoD, he indicated that there was a space of time between sieges in which they could take refuge away from Jerusalem and that region. They were to look specifically for the Roman Army as an Abomination so that they could flee the approaching Desolation that the Army represented.

    All 3 versions of the Olivet Discourse, therefore, presented something for the Disciples to see and recognize. For Matthew and Mark it was the Abomination of Desolation. For Luke it was the Roman Army surrounding Jerusalem. In all cases it was the same thing, because the thing they were to "see" was the Roman Army as an Abomination, which represented an Army that will desolate Jerusalem and the temple--a Desolation that was "near."

    So in all cases the Disciples were to see a sign, and then to recognize that it represented something that had not come yet, which was "near." The sighting of the Roman Army was more immediate. But the Desolation itself, represented by the Army, was only "near," and not yet immediate. I trust you'll understand my position on this?

    You asked a good question today: Is there biblical precedent for interpreting the AoD "standing in the holy place" in this way? I would say that the closest to it is an indirect application of Dan 9.26-27, if we conflate the "desolation of the city and the sanctuary" in vs. 26 with the "abomination of desolation" in vs. 27. However, there is an enormous amount of precedent for viewing an invading pagan army into Jerusalem as a kind of "abomination," or desecration of the holy city of Jerusalem. After all, Jerusalem was, in fact, the "holy city," where the temple dwelt, and an invading pagan army would be considered a desecration of holy ground.

    The following, arguably, identifies an invading army as an "abomination." They are "defilers," which I would argue is an "abomination." What do you think?

    Psalm 79.1 O God, the nations have invaded your inheritance; they have defiled your holy temple, they have reduced Jerusalem to rubble.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,490

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I'm saying that Matthew, Mark, and Luke are all credible writers who quoted Jesus' actual words. They may or may not have been putting what Jesus said in their own words, or these may all have literally been words that Jesus said in a much longer speech than was actually recorded.

    What we do know is that there was an order to the speech in real time history, and that all 3 authors maintained very close to the same sequence of things mentioned. And in all 3 versions there is a point in the speech where either the AoD is described or the encirclement of Jerusalem by armies, which are Roman armies.

    The logical deduction is that the Roman armies *are* the AoD! The Roman armies were an abomination, standing in the vicinity of the temple, and they were bent in *desolating* it. They were, quite literally, the Abomination of Desolation! Why should we think these were different entities?



    Sorry, I completely disagree with you. It seems clear to me that the Roman Armies were, in fact, the AoD! This is self-evident *to me,* and to most of the Church Fathers, I believe. It was also very evident to a number of important commentators in history.



    I posted the Church Father quotes on this, but apparently they have been erased. I believe the majority of them saw the 66-70 AD Jewish War as somehow the fulfillment of the AoD.
    Let me just clarify, did I say those things that you quote under my name? If so in what posts did I say that? Certainly doesn't sound like me

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
  •