Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 124

Thread: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,438

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    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.
    It's the "tall poppy syndrome". If someone posts a lot , and regularly places themselves as teacher, above the rest, then others naturally want to focus on the flaws of their argument. Then you reply in a general manner , so the specifics are not dealt with.

    I would like you to deal with two questions with a precise and concise answer:
    1) Why do you think the extended distress of the diaspora is a greater distress than the final 3.5 year period?

    2)Semantically it's correct to call any period of great distress , a great distress/ tribulation. Why argue against a semantically correct label that everyone commonly uses (GT), it makes for easier communication if everyone is using the same label for the same period.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,490

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    It's the "tall poppy syndrome". If someone posts a lot , and regularly places themselves as teacher, above the rest, then others naturally want to focus on the flaws of their argument. Then you reply in a general manner , so the specifics are not dealt with.

    I would like you to deal with two questions with a precise and concise answer:
    1) Why do you think the extended distress of the diaspora is a greater distress than the final 3.5 year period?

    2)Semantically it's correct to call any period of great distress , a great distress/ tribulation. Why argue against a semantically correct label that everyone commonly uses (GT), it makes for easier communication if everyone is using the same label for the same period.
    Actually, I do utilize the language of the "Great Tribulation," as applying to the 3.5 year Reign of Antichrist for no other reason than most people today understand it that way, and would know what I'm talking about. But I've found it just as important to not dodge the important issue of identifying what the Great Tribulation is *in the biblical sense.* Sure, there is a 3.5 year period in which Antichrist reigns, and Christians will suffer tribulation at that time. But does the Bible call that the "Great Tribulation?" I have to be honest and say, no.

    Then I have to get into the specifics of what the Great Tribulation is, in the biblical sense. It is not just my opinion, but it is, in fact, what the Bible says.

    Luke 21.0 “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.

    There is no question here about what "Great Distress" refers to! It is 1) a Jewish Punishment, and 2) an extended period of punishment well beyond the 70 AD destruction, lasting *to the end of the age!*

    The Great Distress here is identified as greater than any other Hebrew punishment in history, and greater than ever will be again, because *it lasts longer than any other Hebrew punishment in history!*

    Matt 24.21 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.


    My claim here is that this Great Tribulation is cut short for the simple reason that *it lasts so long, and endangers the existence of the Jewish People!* It endangers the fulfillment of God's promises regarding the Jewish Hope! God cuts this very long period short because the Jews are in danger of either assimilation in other countries, or extinction by genocide.

    I have not here been giving "general answers," nor have I elevated myself as a "teacher above others." I talk like I know because that's generally how people with a teaching gift talk. And I have been given the same specific answers for a *long time* on this Forum. If you haven't heard them, you haven't been reading many of my posts.

    But I don't want to get overly defensive. I just want to make it clear that I don't normally answer vaguely, or in very general answers. I may do this only after I have already given specifics, and am getting repetitive, or when I haven't realized someone missed the specifics elsewhere.

    In this case, I'm answering you *specifically.* A great tribulation event is not greater than another great tribulation event because the suffering is greater. Suffering is suffering. Death is death.

    No, what makes a great tribulation event greater than another is *the length of time.* If you suffer punishment for one year, a punishment that lasts 10 years is much greater.

    We're not here talking primarily about *Christian suffering.* Rather, we're talking about *Jewish punishment.* But Christian suffering is also part of the equation when speaking of the Jewish Tribulation of the present age. The Church began with Jews, and Jewish believers were caught up in the punishment of the Jewish people--not because they were guilty and deserved it, but rather, because they were Jews who represented "collateral damage" in God's judgment against the Jewish People.

    Christians suffer in this age not because they are guilty and deserve it, but because with sin in their respective nations they suffer in the same harmful environment that their fellow sinners do.

    So let me be clear. The Great Tribulation is a *Jewish Punishment.* But it involves Christian suffering as well, along with Christian persecution. But the Great Tribulation is *not,* biblically, the last 3.5 years of the age. If you want to refer to it as that, then we can use that term, in the technical sense, as applying to that particular period of time, because it will indeed be a period of "tribulation." But no, I can't say that biblically it is THE Great Tribulation referred to in the Bible and in the Olivet Discourse.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,438

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Luke 21.0 “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.

    There is no question here about what "Great Distress" refers to! It is 1) a Jewish Punishment, and 2) an extended period of punishment well beyond the 70 AD destruction, lasting *to the end of the age!* The Great Distress here is identified as greater than any other Hebrew punishment in history, and greater than ever will be again, because *it lasts longer than any other Hebrew punishment in history!*

    Matt 24.21 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.


    My claim here is that this Great Tribulation is cut short for the simple reason that *it lasts so long, and endangers the existence of the Jewish People!* It endangers the fulfillment of God's promises regarding the Jewish Hope! God cuts this very long period short because the Jews are in danger of either assimilation in other countries, or extinction by genocide.
    I agree that there has been great distress for Jews. Where you make an error is that you apply a phrase mentioned in Luke which describes a great distress during the diaspora, to a phrase in Matthew which mentions AN UNEQUALLED period of distress that applies to the whole world, not specifically to Jews: 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. This unequalled period of distress is specifically after the gospel is preached to the whole world (Matthew 24:14) , the timing which can be seen in Rev :12 where this victory of the gospel occurs exactly 3.5 years before the end (victory of our testimony)

    You say the bible makes the association, whereas the wording of the bible associates the Luke great distress with Jews, and associates the UNEQUALLED DISTRESS with a worldwide event with complete destructive potential. Your attempt to associate the two is subjective and is the less likely if you remain faithful to the timing and application of each event according to the primary meaning of the text.


    In this case, I'm answering you *specifically.* A great tribulation event is not greater than another great tribulation event because the suffering is greater. Suffering is suffering. Death is death. No, what makes a great tribulation event greater than another is *the length of time.* If you suffer punishment for one year, a punishment that lasts 10 years is much greater.
    What you are stating here is a very subjective argument. I would say numbers dying is the better gauge rather than length of time, and is our natural way of assessing the impact of disasters. There will be more numbers dying during the GT than the entire diaspora according to descriptions in Revelation.

    We're not here talking primarily about *Christian suffering.* Rather, we're talking about *Jewish punishment.* But Christian suffering is also part of the equation when speaking of the Jewish Tribulation of the present age. The Church began with Jews, and Jewish believers were caught up in the punishment of the Jewish people--not because they were guilty and deserved it, but rather, because they were Jews who represented "collateral damage" in God's judgment against the Jewish People.
    Again a subjective argument. The actual wording of Matthew 24 gives general application to everyone (no-one would survive), if you prefer to restrict the application it is more objectively applied to a period of great persecution for the church which is God's chosen, the elect. Jesus knew who the real elect were, and the OD often referred to the church more so than ethnic Israel.
    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


    So let me be clear. The Great Tribulation is a *Jewish Punishment.* But it involves Christian suffering as well, along with Christian persecution. But the Great Tribulation is *not,* biblically, the last 3.5 years of the age. If you want to refer to it as that, then we can use that term, in the technical sense, as applying to that particular period of time, because it will indeed be a period of "tribulation." But no, I can't say that biblically it is THE Great Tribulation referred to in the Bible and in the Olivet Discourse.
    I actually can see your possibilities in the wording, but I feel your view is based on three subjective arguments:
    1) you claim a distress is gauged via length of time, rather than numbers killed. Numbers killed is the normal way to measure the extent of disaster/distress.
    2) you insist Matthew 24:22 relates to ethnic Jews, whereas Jesus obviously knows who the true chosen/elect are, as per context of who is in mind in the OD:
    *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
    3) Matthew 24:22 occurs after the gospel has been preached to all nations (v14), your view is inconsistent with the sequence of events.

    On the balance of arguments it would appear that there are two periods of distress , not one. The lesser being the Roman war and Diaspora, the greater being the GT during which there are massive world disasters and wars and persecution for the elect being God's chosen church. In all 3 points above my view is the more objective. Have you any objective arguments for points 1-3 why I should have a clear preference for your view over mine?

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    5,383

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    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?
    It is your right to write what you like. But it is interesting that you find a "significantly different way of looking at the matter", and yet post not a single objection. Your only seeming objection is that Israel's saga could be repeated and that for God to be "consistent" He must raise up a Christian theocracy in our time. How do you reach your view? Consider this:
    • God's plan was that man should rule the earth and its environs (Gen.1.26-28)
    • God did not achieve it before Noah. He must wipe out all men save eight
    • God did not achieve it by Abraham for he died "not having received the Promise" of a Land
    • God did not achieve it with Israel. First, they ruled their Land in a lawless manner, and second they were largely dispersed by 500 BC
    • God did not achieve it with our Lord Jesus. He refused the Kingdoms of the world from Satan. He refused intervention in Rome's sovereignty. He leaves the earth for at least 2,000 years
    • God did not achieve it with the disciples of Jesus for Hebrews 3 and 4 speak of a FUTURE Rest for God
    • The Christian age ends with APOSTASY - a far cry from a Christian Theocracy
    • The Christian age ends with the bulk of Christian "overcome" by Satan's emissary (Rev.13:8)
    • The Christian age ends with "God's people" in Babylon the great (Rev.18:4)
    • The Christian age ends with "those who have the testimony of Jesus" fleeing to a wilderness to be helped by the earth
    • The Christian age ends with the nations blaspheming God (Rev.16:9-11)

    Where then, my friend, is your Christian nations and God's theocracy through them? At the close of the Christian age, far from a Christian theocracy, we find all men save a few, making obeisance to God's enemy. Then we find them joining God's enemy for a great battle. And when they are thoroughly defeated, and a great percentage of men dead, the remainder of men are subdued by a "rod of iron". Daniel's prophecy of world government is a long period of rule by a awesome effigy, only to have the whole effigy suddenly and summarily crushed by a "little" stone. There is no mixing of God and Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Alexander and Caesar. There is "the times of the Gentiles" and then a crushing blow to the Gentiles followed by their subjugation. The Bible shows not a single nation being Christian.

    The gospel is NOT to raise up Christian nations. The gospel is to "... take OUT OF them (the nations) a people for His (God's) name." (Act.15:14).

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,490

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    I agree that there has been great distress for Jews. Where you make an error is that you apply a phrase mentioned in Luke which describes a great distress during the diaspora, to a phrase in Matthew which mentions AN UNEQUALLED period of distress that applies to the whole world, not specifically to Jews: 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. This unequalled period of distress is specifically after the gospel is preached to the whole world (Matthew 24:14) , the timing which can be seen in Rev :12 where this victory of the gospel occurs exactly 3.5 years before the end (victory of our testimony)

    You say the bible makes the association, whereas the wording of the bible associates the Luke great distress with Jews, and associates the UNEQUALLED DISTRESS with a worldwide event with complete destructive potential. Your attempt to associate the two is subjective and is the less likely if you remain faithful to the timing and application of each event according to the primary meaning of the text.
    Yes, my point is that the Great Tribulation is *biblically identified* in Luke 21 as being a *Jewish Punishment.* I am here being very specific, which you seemed to claim I wasn't being. The fact we disagree is besides the point. We may disagree on many things, but this is what I, in particular, believe, and it is based on the Scriptures. We may disagree, but I am being *very specific* about what I believe!

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    What you are stating here is a very subjective argument. I would say numbers dying is the better gauge rather than length of time, and is our natural way of assessing the impact of disasters. There will be more numbers dying during the GT than the entire diaspora according to descriptions in Revelation.
    That is a legitimate way of looking at it. It's true that there are *greater tribulations,* based on the greater numbers of deaths. Very true. We simply disagree based on a very specific argument. Luke indicates the tribulation is greater because this is a "greater punishment for the Jews," lasting for the entire length of the age. And I do associate the "Great Distress" of Luke 21 with the "Great Tribulation" of the other versions. In fact, I find it even more subjective for you to separate the versions to make "Great Tribulation" mean different things! You are basing the difference in meanings on the assumption that there is a difference in contexts. But I do not find that an unrepeatable "Great Tribulation" is any less contained in Luke 21 than in either Matthew 24 or Mark 13! And I don't find any differences with respect to Jewish Punishment and Christian suffering combined in any of the versions! You have your own assumed difference in contexts, without any explicit explanation that this is a difference. By contrast, I am basing my view of the "greatness" of the Great Tribulation on the *length of time* because it is *explicitly said* to be of long duration.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    Again a subjective argument. The actual wording of Matthew 24 gives general application to everyone (no-one would survive), if you prefer to restrict the application it is more objectively applied to a period of great persecution for the church which is God's chosen, the elect. Jesus knew who the real elect were, and the OD often referred to the church more so than ethnic Israel.
    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

    So now you know my position *specifically!* But if you want to debate it, fine. I believe that Jesus spoke this Discourse while Israel was still in covenant with God under the Law. That means believers were still part of Israel in covenant with God under the Law. Clearly, he was addressing them as the nascent Church--not yet expanded out to include the Gentiles. As such, this was a prophecy concerning the nation of Israel specifically, though it would come to apply in principle to Christians everywhere.

    I don't have a problem with disagreement. What I have a problem with is your claim that I'm not specific about what *I believe.*



    I actually can see your possibilities in the wording, but I feel your view is based on three subjective arguments:
    1) you claim a distress is gauged via length of time, rather than numbers killed. Numbers killed is the normal way to measure the extent of disaster/distress.
    2) you insist Matthew 24:22 relates to ethnic Jews, whereas Jesus obviously knows who the true chosen/elect are, as per context of who is in mind in the OD:
    *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
    3) Matthew 24:22 occurs after the gospel has been preached to all nations (v14), your view is inconsistent with the sequence of events.

    On the balance of arguments it would appear that there are two periods of distress , not one. The lesser being the Roman war and Diaspora, the greater being the GT during which there are massive world disasters and wars and persecution for the elect being God's chosen church. In all 3 points above my view is the more objective. Have you any objective arguments for points 1-3 why I should have a clear preference for your view over mine?

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    6,298

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revelation Man View Post

    Matthew 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.
    Revelation Man,

    I used to think the same as you do above.

    However, many years ago, various considerations altered my original thinking. Now I believe Matthew 36-51 is the 2nd Advent; not the Pre-Trib rapture.

    Here is why.

    1) Those taken in the Olivet Discourse, are not taken into Heaven to meet Jesus; but rahter, are taken to destruction. You want to be one of the ones 'left behind' in these verses.


    Here is the common and most popular Matthew account of those taken and left behind.

    Matthew 24:37 "as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
    Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. "


    Matthew doesn't go into detail about where those who are taken, are taken; or what becomes of those who are left. Matthew doesn't tell us where they were taken.
    It is reasonable from Matthew's account above only, to assume a pretrib rapture took them away to Jesus.

    However, Luke also wrote a parallel passage to Matthew in his Olivet discourse; and Luke the doctor, gives us more details. Luke's details, tell us those taken, are taken to destruction.
    They cannot be taken in a pretrib rapture to Jesus.


    Luke 17:26 "And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 7 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;9 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. 1 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back. Remember Lot's wife. 3 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it. 4 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 6 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 7 And they answered and said unto him, [Taken]Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body[carcase is, thither will the eagles [buzzards] be gathered together. "


    So from Luke's account, we see those in Noah's day, and Lot's day not taken up in rapture to Jesus; but taken to destruction, and their bodies become food for the carrion fowls.

    Also, we know this event ocurs at the 2nd Advent, not at a pretrib rapture; because Matthew tells us this bird feeding on the destroyed taken ones, occurs at the 2nd Advent, Post Tribulation time.

    Matthew 24:26" 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. 7 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming [Greek: Parousia-Latin: Advent] of the Son of man be. For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together. 9 Immediately after the tribulation [Latin: Post Tribulationem]"

  7. #52

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    I wonder why it is that I can post some things [this post?] and not others??

  8. #53

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    having trouble posting an actual point (to the subject of this thread... ) and it won't post

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,490

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Please disregard my previous post--I can't edit and can't delete! And I apologize if I come across a little "nasty" in this response--I was having an argument with my wife at the same time I was drafting this post.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    I agree that there has been great distress for Jews. Where you make an error is that you apply a phrase mentioned in Luke which describes a great distress during the diaspora, to a phrase in Matthew which mentions AN UNEQUALLED period of distress that applies to the whole world, not specifically to Jews: 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. This unequalled period of distress is specifically after the gospel is preached to the whole world (Matthew 24:14) , the timing which can be seen in Rev :12 where this victory of the gospel occurs exactly 3.5 years before the end (victory of our testimony)

    You say the bible makes the association, whereas the wording of the bible associates the Luke great distress with Jews, and associates the UNEQUALLED DISTRESS with a worldwide event with complete destructive potential. Your attempt to associate the two is subjective and is the less likely if you remain faithful to the timing and application of each event according to the primary meaning of the text.
    Yes, my point is that the "Great Tribulation" is *biblically identified* in Luke 21 as being a *Jewish Punishment.* I am here being very specific, which you seemed to claim I wasn't being. The fact we disagree is besides the point. We may disagree on many things, but this is what I, in particular, believe, and it is based on the Scriptures. We may disagree, but I am being *very specific* about what I believe!

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    What you are stating here is a very subjective argument. I would say numbers dying is the better gauge rather than length of time, and is our natural way of assessing the impact of disasters. There will be more numbers dying during the GT than the entire diaspora according to descriptions in Revelation.
    That is a legitimate way of looking at it. It's true that there are *greater tribulations,* based on the greater numbers of deaths. Very true.

    We simply disagree based on a very specific argument. Luke indicates the tribulation is greater because this is a "greater punishment for the Jews," lasting for the entire length of the age.

    And I do associate the "Great Distress" of Luke 21 with the "Great Tribulation" of the other versions. In fact, I find it even more subjective for you to separate the versions to make "Great Tribulation" mean different things!

    You are basing the difference in meanings on the assumption that there is a difference in contexts. But I do not find that an unrepeatable "Great Tribulation" is any less contained in Luke 21 than in either Matthew 24 or Mark 13!

    And I don't find any differences with respect to Jewish Punishment and Christian suffering combined in any of the versions! You have your own assumed difference in contexts, without any explicit explanation that this is a difference. By contrast, I am basing my view of the "greatness" of the Great Tribulation on the *length of time* because it is *explicitly said* to be of long duration.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    Again a subjective argument. The actual wording of Matthew 24 gives general application to everyone (no-one would survive), if you prefer to restrict the application it is more objectively applied to a period of great persecution for the church which is God's chosen, the elect. Jesus knew who the real elect were, and the OD often referred to the church more so than ethnic Israel.
    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
    So now you know my position *specifically!* But if you want to debate it, fine. I believe that Jesus spoke this Discourse while Israel was still in covenant with God under the Law. That means believers were still part of Israel in covenant with God under the Law. Clearly, he was addressing them as the nascent Church--not yet expanded out to include the Gentiles. As such, this was a prophecy concerning the nation of Israel specifically, though it would come to apply in principle to Christians everywhere.

    I don't have a problem with disagreement. What I have a problem with is your claim that I'm not specific about what *I believe.*

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    I actually can see your possibilities in the wording, but I feel your view is based on three subjective arguments:
    1) you claim a distress is gauged via length of time, rather than numbers killed. Numbers killed is the normal way to measure the extent of disaster/distress.
    2) you insist Matthew 24:22 relates to ethnic Jews, whereas Jesus obviously knows who the true chosen/elect are, as per context of who is in mind in the OD:
    *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
    3) Matthew 24:22 occurs after the gospel has been preached to all nations (v14), your view is inconsistent with the sequence of events.

    On the balance of arguments it would appear that there are two periods of distress , not one. The lesser being the Roman war and Diaspora, the greater being the GT during which there are massive world disasters and wars and persecution for the elect being God's chosen church. In all 3 points above my view is the more objective. Have you any objective arguments for points 1-3 why I should have a clear preference for your view over mine?
    Well, if you're going to debate the points, and not accuse me of being "too general," I'll be happy to give you my reasons. But for now, I've had to correct the way this post went out, because I'm still unable to *edit* on this Forum. Please disregard my last post!

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,490

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    It is your right to write what you like. But it is interesting that you find a "significantly different way of looking at the matter", and yet post not a single objection. Your only seeming objection is that Israel's saga could be repeated and that for God to be "consistent" He must raise up a Christian theocracy in our time. How do you reach your view? Consider this:
    • God's plan was that man should rule the earth and its environs (Gen.1.26-28)
    • God did not achieve it before Noah. He must wipe out all men save eight
    • God did not achieve it by Abraham for he died "not having received the Promise" of a Land
    • God did not achieve it with Israel. First, they ruled their Land in a lawless manner, and second they were largely dispersed by 500 BC
    • God did not achieve it with our Lord Jesus. He refused the Kingdoms of the world from Satan. He refused intervention in Rome's sovereignty. He leaves the earth for at least 2,000 years
    • God did not achieve it with the disciples of Jesus for Hebrews 3 and 4 speak of a FUTURE Rest for God
    • The Christian age ends with APOSTASY - a far cry from a Christian Theocracy
    • The Christian age ends with the bulk of Christian "overcome" by Satan's emissary (Rev.13:8)
    • The Christian age ends with "God's people" in Babylon the great (Rev.18:4)
    • The Christian age ends with "those who have the testimony of Jesus" fleeing to a wilderness to be helped by the earth
    • The Christian age ends with the nations blaspheming God (Rev.16:9-11)

    Where then, my friend, is your Christian nations and God's theocracy through them? At the close of the Christian age, far from a Christian theocracy, we find all men save a few, making obeisance to God's enemy. Then we find them joining God's enemy for a great battle. And when they are thoroughly defeated, and a great percentage of men dead, the remainder of men are subdued by a "rod of iron". Daniel's prophecy of world government is a long period of rule by a awesome effigy, only to have the whole effigy suddenly and summarily crushed by a "little" stone. There is no mixing of God and Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Alexander and Caesar. There is "the times of the Gentiles" and then a crushing blow to the Gentiles followed by their subjugation. The Bible shows not a single nation being Christian.

    The gospel is NOT to raise up Christian nations. The gospel is to "... take OUT OF them (the nations) a people for His (God's) name." (Act.15:14).
    I would argue that, based on the Bible, both are true. God wants to raise up nations, and He wants to take out of the nations a singular people for His name. In the present age God has established temporal systems in order to obtain His ultimate goals. What He has done, I believe, is establish temporary systems of redemption, until final redemption takes place. First nations, and then a singular People. To be honest, I don't know how God will arrange things in eternity, on the immortal earth--whether nations or just a single Nation? But we do know God has called *nations* into existence in the present age, in preparation for a new age.

    Your argument seems to be that because things are in a fallen state, and God has had to work with imperfect systems at present, that none of these present systems of redemption are relevant? If God used the Law, and it failed under Israel, then the Law is irrelevant. If God today is using churches that are failing after a time, then they are irrelevant. Obviously, I don't look at it that way.

    If God promised Abraham He would produce nations for him, and not just physical descendants turned into nations, then I believe these nations are relevant, no matter how temporal they may be. Even the Law, as temporary as it was, was enormously relevant in its time! And today, when God must establish imperfect churches, composed of true and false Christians, I find that establishing churches are still enormously relevant!

    Do you see the difference? God's temporary systems--even the use of animals as a temporal system of redemption--had enormous significance for Israel in its time. It wasn't any less spiritual in their time, working among God's genuine people, than it is in our time for us to lean upon Christ's sacrifice. The animal sacrifices under the Law were to *represent Christ* in the mind of God!

    In the same way, the distinction of nations is enormously important because God is working with them individually as if a specific covenant applied to each of them individually. Israel still has a covenant with God to be recovered and to remain God's nation. Newer Christian nations also have, I believe, covenants between God and them to secure for themselves a permanent place among God's people in the present age. All this will be consummated, I believe, in the Kingdom to come. But there are important ramifications in this for the present, as we preach a message to those who belong to these nations, so that they can individually decide if they want to be a part of this.

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,438

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Please disregard my previous post--I can't edit and can't delete! And I apologize if I come across a little "nasty" in this response--I was having an argument with my wife at the same time I was drafting this post.
    LOL Well go easy on her, she probably needs a hug (what do I know about relationships? ) . Your tone seemed fine.


    Yes, my point is that the "Great Tribulation" is *biblically identified* in Luke 21 as being a *Jewish Punishment.* I am here being very specific, which you seemed to claim I wasn't being. The fact we disagree is besides the point. We may disagree on many things, but this is what I, in particular, believe, and it is based on the Scriptures. We may disagree, but I am being *very specific* about what I believe!
    You say you are being precise, but you precisely state your own view, basically ignoring the points I bring forward. This is an exact example of the imprecision of your post. At this stage I stated my interpretation of the distress as a "worldwide event" and also mentioned Matthew 24:14 which is about the spread of the gospel and how the distress occurs AFTER the spread of the gospel if one is to take order of events seriously.
    You are just not dealing with my objections.


    That is a legitimate way of looking at it. It's true that there are *greater tribulations,* based on the greater numbers of deaths. Very true.

    We simply disagree based on a very specific argument. Luke indicates the tribulation is greater because this is a "greater punishment for the Jews," lasting for the entire length of the age.

    And I do associate the "Great Distress" of Luke 21 with the "Great Tribulation" of the other versions. In fact, I find it even more subjective for you to separate the versions to make "Great Tribulation" mean different things!
    Well the one occurs during the diaspora, and the other occurs after the gospel is preached and just before the second coming. The one is described as a great distress, the other is described as the greatest ever distress. The one applies to the Jews, the other applies to the elect, the "chosen", in the OD which is essentially about the saved as per my five quotes in my previous post.


    You are basing the difference in meanings on the assumption that there is a difference in contexts. But I do not find that an unrepeatable "Great Tribulation" is any less contained in Luke 21 than in either Matthew 24 or Mark 13!

    And I don't find any differences with respect to Jewish Punishment and Christian suffering combined in any of the versions! You have your own assumed difference in contexts, without any explicit explanation that this is a difference. By contrast, I am basing my view of the "greatness" of the Great Tribulation on the *length of time* because it is *explicitly said* to be of long duration.
    That is circular reasoning. You assume the two to be the same great distress, and so look at the one to find out why the other is called the greatest ever distress. I find your deductive reasoning quite frustrating in light of the fact that you are so articulate. That type of reasoning can lead to multiple secondary interpretations based on one illogical deduction (that two periods of distress have to be the same because the word "distress" is used.

    The contexts ARE different. The one occurs before the end of the diaspora, the other occurs AFTER the gospel has been preached to all nations. But I said this. Yet you say I do not have "any explicit explanation". But I did. I explained my explicit explanation. Not only that the 70AD destruction and distress occurred to unsaved Israel, saved Jews were more assimilated into European Christian society, and escaped the 70 AD destruction. The diaspora applies to unsaved Israel, described in Luke 21 in a few verses. However most of the OD discourse specifically applies to saved Jews and by extension to all the saved, which are the elect. The persecution of the saved occurs during the GT.


    So now you know my position *specifically!* But if you want to debate it, fine. I believe that Jesus spoke this Discourse while Israel was still in covenant with God under the Law. That means believers were still part of Israel in covenant with God under the Law. Clearly, he was addressing them as the nascent Church--not yet expanded out to include the Gentiles. As such, this was a prophecy concerning the nation of Israel specifically, though it would come to apply in principle to Christians everywhere.

    I don't have a problem with disagreement. What I have a problem with is your claim that I'm not specific about what *I believe.*

    Well, if you're going to debate the points, and not accuse me of being "too general," I'll be happy to give you my reasons. But for now, I've had to correct the way this post went out, because I'm still unable to *edit* on this Forum. Please disregard my last post!
    Let me correct my impression gained from previous discussions with you. It is not your own view, but your comprehension and precise response to my points that I feel is missing in your posts. If you read my points carefully and comprehended them, your natural response would be to want to respond in detail, and so I doubt you are concentrating on my points. This can lead to unproductive discussions. I don't feel you came even close to dealing with my points in your last post, and you really just repeated your own views.

    Let me repeat , on 3 counts your view is more subjective:
    1) you claim a distress is gauged via length of time, rather than numbers killed. Numbers killed is the normal way to measure the extent of disaster/distress. You use the assumption that they are the same distress to prove they are the same distress, that is circular reasoning.
    2) you insist Matthew 24:22 relates to ethnic Jews, whereas Jesus obviously knows who the true chosen/elect are, as per context of who is in mind in the OD:
    *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. Saved Jews were less in focus during the diaspora, being more assimilated into the general church, yet Jesus was referring to these saved Jews, not general Israel during most of the Olivet Discourse. Yet you want to apply the greatest ever distress to general Israel (70AD did not effect these saved Jews much, they escaped)when saved Israel dominates most of the context and are the "chosen" (elect).
    3) Matthew 24:22 occurs after the gospel has been preached to all nations (v14), your view is inconsistent with the sequence of events.

  12. #57

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    [edited to condense] Luke 21:32's "ALL" follows what was stated in verse 24 ("until the TIMES of the Gentiles be fulfilled," parallel with Rev11:2b--the last 42 mos b/f His 2nd Coming to the earth)

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,490

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    LOL Well go easy on her, she probably needs a hug (what do I know about relationships? ) . Your tone seemed fine.
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    You say you are being precise, but you precisely state your own view, basically ignoring the points I bring forward. This is an exact example of the imprecision of your post.
    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!

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    At this stage I stated my interpretation of the distress as a "worldwide event" and also mentioned Matthew 24:14 which is about the spread of the gospel and how the distress occurs AFTER the spread of the gospel if one is to take order of events seriously.
    You are just not dealing with my objections.
    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.

    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!

    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.

    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.

    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    Well the one occurs during the diaspora, and the other occurs after the gospel is preached and just before the second coming. The one is described as a great distress, the other is described as the greatest ever distress. The one applies to the Jews, the other applies to the elect, the "chosen", in the OD which is essentially about the saved as per my five quotes in my previous post.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    That is circular reasoning. You assume the two to be the same great distress, and so look at the one to find out why the other is called the greatest ever distress. I find your deductive reasoning quite frustrating in light of the fact that you are so articulate. That type of reasoning can lead to multiple secondary interpretations based on one illogical deduction (that two periods of distress have to be the same because the word "distress" is used.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    The contexts ARE different. The one occurs before the end of the diaspora, the other occurs AFTER the gospel has been preached to all nations. But I said this. Yet you say I do not have "any explicit explanation". But I did. I explained my explicit explanation. Not only that the 70AD destruction and distress occurred to unsaved Israel, saved Jews were more assimilated into European Christian society, and escaped the 70 AD destruction. The diaspora applies to unsaved Israel, described in Luke 21 in a few verses. However most of the OD discourse specifically applies to saved Jews and by extension to all the saved, which are the elect. The persecution of the saved occurs during the GT.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    Let me correct my impression gained from previous discussions with you. It is not your own view, but your comprehension and precise response to my points that I feel is missing in your posts. If you read my points carefully and comprehended them, your natural response would be to want to respond in detail, and so I doubt you are concentrating on my points. This can lead to unproductive discussions. I don't feel you came even close to dealing with my points in your last post, and you really just repeated your own views.
    Hopefully, I'm edging closer now? Some of it is that you have to be specific, as well, with what you mean by these supposed differences? I mean, I don't see Matthew and Mark as being universal, and Luke purely local.

    I've broken all 3 versions down, and compared them on this very Forum, in discussions with FHG, I believe. I've dealt in great specificity with almost every verse, comparing all 3 versions. You may not have seen that. But in our own personal discussions, I may not recognize what exactly you're saying is "universal" and what is "local?"

    I mean, I do see it, but it just doesn't seem significant in terms of evidence. You seem to be *assuming* a universal application purely based on differences of words that you *assume* make the difference. For example, the universal gospel mission is expressed. And then the gospel mission is explained in detail for the Jewish disciples of Jesus. This is not indicating a "universal/local" contrast for me, and is not significant. You have to *assume* a difference really exists in advance. And there is no reason to do so!

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    Let me repeat , on 3 counts your view is more subjective:
    1) you claim a distress is gauged via length of time, rather than numbers killed. Numbers killed is the normal way to measure the extent of disaster/distress. You use the assumption that they are the same distress to prove they are the same distress, that is circular reasoning.
    2) you insist Matthew 24:22 relates to ethnic Jews, whereas Jesus obviously knows who the true chosen/elect are, as per context of who is in mind in the OD:
    *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. Saved Jews were less in focus during the diaspora, being more assimilated into the general church, yet Jesus was referring to these saved Jews, not general Israel during most of the Olivet Discourse. Yet you want to apply the greatest ever distress to general Israel (70AD did not effect these saved Jews much, they escaped)when saved Israel dominates most of the context and are the "chosen" (elect).
    3) Matthew 24:22 occurs after the gospel has been preached to all nations (v14), your view is inconsistent with the sequence of events.
    About the only issue I haven't addressed here is your sense that "saved Israel" is largely the focus of this Discourse. What that does is replace Israel as the context of this Discourse! Israel's *punishment* is the context, along with the experience of saved Jews in the Early Church. It would continue to be the experience of the Church as the gospel expands into all nations.

    None of this is, for me, "circular reasoning." Rather, this is the real context, which you are using word differences to eliminate. The context in all 3 versions is Israel, both believers and unbelievers. Naturally, the message is directed to believers, who alone would believe Jesus' message!

    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.

    The evidence for this is not circular reasoning. Rather, it is an argument based on *blbical context.* In context, Israel's punishment were marked by *time periods.* Whether or not they are marked by numbers of deaths may be significant as well. But if you consider how many Jews have died during the Jewish Diaspora compared with the number of Hebrews killed during the Babylonian Captivity, I think you would have to say the Jewish Diaspora was a "greater punishment?"

  14. #59
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Clanton Alabama
    Posts
    897

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Taylor View Post
    Revelation Man,

    I used to think the same as you do above.

    However, many years ago, various considerations altered my original thinking. Now I believe Matthew 36-51 is the 2nd Advent; not the Pre-Trib rapture.

    Here is why.

    1) Those taken in the Olivet Discourse, are not taken into Heaven to meet Jesus; but rahter, are taken to destruction. You want to be one of the ones 'left behind' in these verses.


    Here is the common and most popular Matthew account of those taken and left behind.

    Matthew 24:37 "as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
    Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. "


    Matthew doesn't go into detail about where those who are taken, are taken; or what becomes of those who are left. Matthew doesn't tell us where they were taken.
    It is reasonable from Matthew's account above only, to assume a pretrib rapture took them away to Jesus.

    However, Luke also wrote a parallel passage to Matthew in his Olivet discourse; and Luke the doctor, gives us more details. Luke's details, tell us those taken, are taken to destruction.
    They cannot be taken in a pretrib rapture to Jesus.


    Luke 17:26 "And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 7 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;9 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. 1 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back. Remember Lot's wife. 3 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it. 4 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 6 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 7 And they answered and said unto him, [Taken]Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body[carcase is, thither will the eagles [buzzards] be gathered together. "


    So from Luke's account, we see those in Noah's day, and Lot's day not taken up in rapture to Jesus; but taken to destruction, and their bodies become food for the carrion fowls.

    Also, we know this event ocurs at the 2nd Advent, not at a pretrib rapture; because Matthew tells us this bird feeding on the destroyed taken ones, occurs at the 2nd Advent, Post Tribulation time.

    Matthew 24:26" 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. 7 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming [Greek: Parousia-Latin: Advent] of the Son of man be. For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together. 9 Immediately after the tribulation [Latin: Post Tribulationem]"
    I will get to Matthew 24:36 shortly, bit as per the Luke rendition, I will COPY AND PASTE your below and comment...............

    Luke 17:26 "And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 7 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;9 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. 1 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back. Remember Lot's wife. 3 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it. 4 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 6 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 7 And they answered and said unto him, [Taken]Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body[carcase is, thither will the eagles [buzzards] be gathered together. "

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where will they be taken ? To where the CARCASS is at..........and where will that be ? Read Rv. 19, the Marriage Supper, after we return with Jesus to earth from Heaven we are spoken of as "FOWLS" who eat the flesh of the Kings, Captains etc. etc. The Carcass Jesus is speaking of is the carnage that will be Armageddon, where the blood comes up to the horses bridles. So where will they be ? Where the Carcass is at, as soon as they return from Heaven. Jesus gave Paul the Rapture/Harpazo understanding, so he only spoke here about the Armageddon carnage. Not the Heavenly venture for 7 years per se. NOW as per Matthew 24:36.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Matthew 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. 37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

    39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

    Everything in the above passage screams Pre tribulation Rapture. If this was the Second Coming would they be marrying, giving in marriage, eating and drinking or having a gay ole time if the Plagues of God/Wrath of God was upon them ? Of course not !! But if they were doing all that just before the Rapture, oblivious to what had just befallen them when the Rapture happened (the Rapture means all Christians DIE in a flash and change to Spirit men), then it would make perfect sense. Just like when the RAINS started thy were laughing at Noah. The floods came later however. Likewise once the Rapture happens, the Wrath will also come later, but unbeknownst to them, their fate is sealed once they miss the Rapture, just like those locked out of Noah's Ark's date were sealed once it starTed raining, but the flood came LATER !! So they only understood when the FLOOD CAME, not when the rains first started, likewise the people of Tribulation will only understand in full when the Wrath of God comes, not when the Rapture happens per se.

    So shall the coming of Jesus be...........not the Second Coming, that will not be a SURPRISE will it ? Noe ca it be, they will have a 1260 day countdown and they will sEe the 5h Vial pOURed out, the 6th Vial poured out and will undErstand, Jesus is coming next, AMEN. But it fits the Pre-trib Rapture to a tee, the coming takes one and leaves one, which is only a Metaphor, it could be 1 out of 10, but the illustration is some are taken and some are left !! And since the Jews asked him about the TEMPLES DESTRUCTION, when he would come again, and the End of the World/Age Jesus had to give them both the Second Coming in which he will deliver the 1/3 of Jews who repent and are in Petra (The Wheat) and those Jews who were Raptured like the Gentile Church before the 70th Week.

    So of course one is taken and on is left, it's an illustration, the number is what it is. The 144,000 is also a Metaphor, 1/3 of the Jews will be more like 2 - 3 Million Jews.

    WATCH THEREFORE for you know not when your Lord doth return....But...the Church will not be on earth to WATCH for the Second Coming, thus we WATCH for Jesus to call us home to Heaven, not for the Second Coming, the Beast will kill all the Christians during the 70th Week.

    It only fits the Pre-trib Rapture brother. If I have heard that taken to destruction theory one time I have heard it 1000 and it just makes no sense at all, it's just something someone made up to combat the facts that Jesus is coming to take one and leave one and thus it the Rapture, and of course they don't believe what everyone should see in Rev. 19, we are in Heaven then return with Jesus to battle . It is men's tradition and I discounted it 30 years ago.

    Noah and Lot wasn't supposed to be TAKEN UP, Jesus had yet to come, thus their Mission as well as Israel's was still on earth. Our mission is on earth now, but when Matt. 24:14 comes, the Gospel will have been preached unto ALL THE WORLD, thus our mission on earth as the Church will be complete. You can look at it like this, Noah was TAKEN out of the Flood, Lot was TAKEN out of the Fire, and the Church will be TAKEN out of the Wrath. Space and time is meaningless to God.

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pitt Meadows b.c.
    Posts
    4,292
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Taylor View Post
    Revelation Man,

    I used to think the same as you do above.

    However, many years ago, various considerations altered my original thinking. Now I believe Matthew 36-51 is the 2nd Advent; not the Pre-Trib rapture.

    Here is why.

    1) Those taken in the Olivet Discourse, are not taken into Heaven to meet Jesus; but rahter, are taken to destruction. You want to be one of the ones 'left behind' in these verses.


    Here is the common and most popular Matthew account of those taken and left behind.

    Matthew 24:37 "as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
    Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. "


    Matthew doesn't go into detail about where those who are taken, are taken; or what becomes of those who are left. Matthew doesn't tell us where they were taken.
    It is reasonable from Matthew's account above only, to assume a pretrib rapture took them away to Jesus.

    However, Luke also wrote a parallel passage to Matthew in his Olivet discourse; and Luke the doctor, gives us more details. Luke's details, tell us those taken, are taken to destruction.
    They cannot be taken in a pretrib rapture to Jesus.


    Luke 17:26 "And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 7 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;9 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. 1 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back. Remember Lot's wife. 3 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it. 4 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 6 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 7 And they answered and said unto him, [Taken]Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body[carcase is, thither will the eagles [buzzards] be gathered together. "


    So from Luke's account, we see those in Noah's day, and Lot's day not taken up in rapture to Jesus; but taken to destruction, and their bodies become food for the carrion fowls.

    Also, we know this event ocurs at the 2nd Advent, not at a pretrib rapture; because Matthew tells us this bird feeding on the destroyed taken ones, occurs at the 2nd Advent, Post Tribulation time.

    Matthew 24:26" 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. 7 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming [Greek: Parousia-Latin: Advent] of the Son of man be. For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together. 9 Immediately after the tribulation [Latin: Post Tribulationem]"
    Agreed it was much better to be left behind in Noah's day

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 1 guests)

  1. jeffweeder

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
  •