Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 130

Thread: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

  1. #76
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,484

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    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."
    Exactly, context matters. I am basing my view on both immediate context of Matthew 24:21-22, and greater context of the OD. Immediate context describes a tribulation greater than any the world has ever experienced. Greater context shows that the saved are in mind in most of the OD and also in the mention of the elect in Matthew 24:22. I had FIVE QUOTES from the OD which show that the OD gives advice to the saved during both 70AD and the second coming. Even that small part about the judgment of unsaved Israel contains advice to the saved how to escape that particular judgment. So your attempts to apply an few verses about an earlier distress (for the unsaved) to a later distress based on your imagined theme that greater Israel is in mind throughout the OD is frankly...... incorrect. I quoted FIVE verses about the greater theme being advice to the unsaved during 70AD and the second coming.
    Luke 21:12-21 is for the SAVED (NINE VERSES) (edit: v20 applies to the judgment too)
    Luke 21:22-24 judgment for ONLY unsaved Israel (THREE VERSES)
    The rest is neutral, listing events but obviously so the saved know what is to happen.

    Where is this so-called general theme of Israel that you keep making emphatic statements about and yet do not support with logic nor verses?




    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!*
    You say "I'm arguing that there is *no fixed chronological sequence* in events mentioned in any speech!". . That is just illogical, when some one is specifically foretelling a series of events, there is actually a logical ordering instead of a random mix. You then need to have an explanation for randomly changing the order of events, or your view is at a distinct disadvantage to the view that keeps consistent with the order of events. You need to explain why your view is an ADVANTAGE over the view consistent with the ordering.



    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.
    The verse is specifically worldwide in scope. Yes to them the Roman world was their world, but this does not match with the WORLDWIDE scope of the grand finale of this age:,
    And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.
    21 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; but for the elect’s sake those days will be shortened.

    You seem to blur the two phases in church history, yet preaching in the first century is only one early step towards the finalisation of the mandate of the gospel.

    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.
    Incorrect, you keep making statements that are not supported by the general theme of the OD, which is advice and information to the saved regarding 70AD and the second coming. ONLY FOUR VERSES in the OD focus on the judgment of apostate Israel, and in your mind your have projected that as a theme into much of Mark 13, Luke 21, Matthew 24 . Most of those chapters concern themselves with advice to the SAVED, and then the SECOND COMING. Your emphatic statements just do not cut it, verses are needed to support your position of your supposed theme. Here are some verses that show that the OD concerns advice to the saved:

    Luke 21:12 they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons. You will be brought before kings and rulers for My name’s sake.
    Luke 21:13 But it will turn out for you as an occasion for testimony.
    Luke 21:14 Therefore settle it in your hearts not to meditate beforehand on what you will answer
    Luke 21:15 for I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries will not be able to contradict or resist.
    Luke 21:16 You will be betrayed even by parents and brothers, relatives and friends; and they will put some of you to death
    Luke 21:17 And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake.
    Luke 21:18 But not a hair of your head shall be lost.
    Luke 21:19 By your patience possess your souls.
    Luke 21:21-22 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. (the saved escape, unsaved are judged)

    Matthew 24:9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake.
    Matthew 24: 10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another.
    Matthew 24: 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved.


    etc etc etc. The theme of the OD is advice to the saved during tribulations. There is a short patch, just four verses being Luke 21:20 and Luke 21:22-24, about judgment to Israel. Please provide some verses to support your view that "the *context* for the Olivet Discourse was the judgment of God against the Jews". Of course we are debating the abomination, you need to find evidence elsewhere for your supposed theme to prove your historical view of the abomination is correct. In the meantime it is pretty obvious that the theme is general advice to the church during various tribulations.

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,786

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    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
    No, I get a lot of noise here at times--I may have gotten distracted. I think FHG posted something, and I had thought it was you. So some of the post is attributed to FHG, and some to you. Sorry about that. I can't delete or edit anything on this Forum. Later, when things are fixed, I'll try to straighten it out. For the present I had no intention of replying to FHG because I don't find our discussions mutually edifying. However, I do find you and others fine. Even some of the harsher ones are fine. Some people I can't discuss things with, and I only replied to FHG because I thought he was you!

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,484

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    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.



    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!* "



    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!



    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.
    You say: Matthew and Luke both mention a "great distress" which *includes the elect believers
    This is wrong, the Luke 21 distress is a JUDGMENT FOR THE UNSAVED. Saved Jews were given an escape plan, and actually did escape that judgment.

    20 “But when you (SAVED) see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those (SAVED) who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those (SAVED) who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance (FOR THE UNSAVED) , that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! (UNSAVED) For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people (UNSAVED PEOPLE). 24 And they (UNSAVED WHO DO NOT ESCAPE) will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations.

    Luke 21:20-24 describes a judgment on unsaved Israel, and an escape for the saved. The great distress does not necessarily apply to the entire diaspora, the wording itself applied to merely the war and the "led away captive". Applying the specific wording "great distress" to the entire diaspora rather than the beginning of the diaspora is assumption on your part, and not hinted at in the text.

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,786

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Exactly, context matters. I am basing my view on both immediate context of Matthew 24:21-22, and greater context of the OD. Immediate context describes a tribulation greater than any the world has ever experienced. Greater context shows that the saved are in mind in most of the OD and also in the mention of the elect in Matthew 24:22. I had FIVE QUOTES from the OD which show that the OD gives advice to the saved during both 70AD and the second coming. Even that small part about the judgment of unsaved Israel contains advice to the saved how to escape that particular judgment. So your attempts to apply an few verses about an earlier distress (for the unsaved) to a later distress based on your imagined theme that greater Israel is in mind throughout the OD is frankly...... incorrect. I quoted FIVE verses about the greater theme being advice to the unsaved during 70AD and the second coming.
    Luke 21:12-21 is for the SAVED (NINE VERSES)
    Luke 21:22-24 judgment for ONLY unsaved Israel (THREE VERSES)
    The rest is neutral, listing events but obviously so the saved know what is to happen.

    Where is this so-called general theme of Israel that you keep making emphatic statements about and yet do not support with logic nor verses?
    The major theme of the Discourse is the *destruction of the temple.* The Discourse begins with this prediction. As such, it is a *Jewish judgment* that is being spoken of. Christians are, of course, going to be caught up in this because *the 1st Christians were numbered among the Jews!* So there is no dichotomy between the Jewish judgment and the experience of Jewish believers in this judgment!

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    You say "I'm arguing that there is *no fixed chronological sequence* in events mentioned in any speech!". . That is just illogical, when some one is specifically foretelling a series of events, there is actually a logical ordering instead of a random mix. You then need to have an explanation for randomly changing the order of events, or your view is at a distinct disadvantage to the view that keeps consistent with the order of events. You need to explain why your view is an ADVANTAGE over the view consistent with the ordering.
    That is true if the speech is a list of events in chronological order. This speech does follow a very limited chronological order, but not entirely. Some events listed are mentioned several times. And some events listed are elaborated on, well beyond any fixed chronological sequence. For example, the gospel mission is mentioned as something the Disciples would experience. But then it is elaborated on, as something that would extend throughout the age until the end of the age. Then there is a return to events that happen in the present age, including the AoD.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    I've heard this argument before, however once again you make emphatic statements, without supporting your view with either logic nor bible verses.
    The idea that the "whole world" is applied to the Disciples' own experience is in evidence in Genesis, where the Flood "covered the whole earth with water." Some believe this meant water was miraculously created and covered every mountain, including Mt. Everest, etc. around the entire globe! This would've been far more water than exists. And yet the Scriptures indicate that "rain" and "waters beneath the earth" supplied the water. This obviously was water that covered the entire earth in the region that Noah lived in.

    When the Scriptures speak of "all flesh," it can refer to the context of those whose flesh is being referred to. It is context that determines *whose flesh" it is that is being referred to. "All the flesh" of who? Israel. Israel is in the context of this Jewish judgment.

    The argument that this has to do with Jewish judgment in this literal generation is simply a matter of defining the meaning of "generation." It refers to those alive at the time Jesus delivered this Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    Incorrect, you keep making statements that are not supported by the general theme of the OD, which is advice and information to the saved regarding 70AD and the second coming. ONLY THREE VERSES in the OD focus on the judgment of apostate Israel, and in your mind your have projected that into the entire chapters of Mark 13, Luke 21, Matthew 24 and Matthew 25. Most of those chapters concern themselves with advice to the SAVED, and then the SECOND COMING. Your emphatic statements just do not cut it. Here are some verses that show that the OD concerns advice to the saved:

    Luke 21:12 they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons. You will be brought before kings and rulers for My name’s sake.
    Luke 21:13 But it will turn out for you as an occasion for testimony.
    Luke 21:14 Therefore settle it in your hearts not to meditate beforehand on what you will answer
    Luke 21:15 for I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries will not be able to contradict or resist.
    Luke 21:16 You will be betrayed even by parents and brothers, relatives and friends; and they will put some of you to death
    Luke 21:17 And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake.
    Luke 21:18 But not a hair of your head shall be lost.
    Luke 21:19 By your patience possess your souls.
    Luke 21:21-22 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. (the saved escape, unsaved are judged)

    Matthew 24:9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake.
    Matthew 24: 10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another.
    Matthew 24: 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved.

    etc etc etc. The theme of the OD is advice to the saved. There is a short patch, just four verses being Luke 21:20 and Luke 21:22-24, about judgment to Israel. Please provide some verses to support your view that "the *context* for the Olivet Discourse was the judgment of God against the Jews". Of course we are debating the abomination, you need to find evidence elsewhere for your supposed theme to prove your historical view of the abomination is correct. In the meantime it is pretty obvious that the theme is general advice to the church during various tribulations.
    As I said, the Great Distress mentioned in all 3 versions refer to the same thing because logically, they are all quoting from the exact same Discourse! To apply difference meanings to the same Discourse is irrational, to me.

    Yes, this is a Discourse about the judgment and future of Israel. At the time Israel was still the "chosen nation," the elect of God. The Gentile Church had not been born yet. And so, Jesus is addressing the fate of Israel, just as the Prophets had done in the past. There is nothing odd or unusual about this.

    Naturally, this is addressed, however, to *believers,* because only they would respond to and obey Jesus. They had to know the fate of their own nation because they would be affected by the state of the nation following judgment.

    Contrary to what is often thought, this is not a series of predictions about the return of Christ, with the idea that the 2nd Coming is more important than the events of 70 AD. No, historical judgments are part of human judgment, and are just as important as final judgment.

    In the time of Jesus Jews had to decide what they were going to follow--Jesus or corrupt Jewish religion. Most of them chose to follow Jewish religion to the exclusion of Jesus and had their religion taken away from them. That is what the 70 AD judgment was all about.

    But for believers, they were not trying to prognosticate about the 2nd Coming. They weren't reading their palms or looking into crystal balls. That is the opposite of what Jesus was trying to teach!

    Jesus was teaching that eschatology is the domain of God, and preparing for the future Kingdom is a matter of what we choose to do *today!* And so, the more immediate need for the Jews at this time was choosing for Jesus, and not turning to Jewish religion to the exclusion of Jesus. This was vital, and the thing that prompted the Olivet Discourse.

    I'm engaged in a discussion with my brother right now, and he prefers to see the AoD as the Antichrist, based on word meanings. I base my interpretation, by contrast, on an usual set of word meanings in the light of the *context.* I'm continuing to discuss these things with him, and if you're interested I'll let you in on some of the discussion?

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,484

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    The major theme of the Discourse is the *destruction of the temple.* The Discourse begins with this prediction. As such, it is a *Jewish judgment* that is being spoken of. Christians are, of course, going to be caught up in this because *the 1st Christians were numbered among the Jews!* So there is no dichotomy between the Jewish judgment and the experience of Jewish believers in this judgment!



    That is true if the speech is a list of events in chronological order. This speech does follow a very limited chronological order, but not entirely. Some events listed are mentioned several times. And some events listed are elaborated on, well beyond any fixed chronological sequence. For example, the gospel mission is mentioned as something the Disciples would experience. But then it is elaborated on, as something that would extend throughout the age until the end of the age. Then there is a return to events that happen in the present age, including the AoD.



    The idea that the "whole world" is applied to the Disciples' own experience is in evidence in Genesis, where the Flood "covered the whole earth with water." Some believe this meant water was miraculously created and covered every mountain, including Mt. Everest, etc. around the entire globe! This would've been far more water than exists. And yet the Scriptures indicate that "rain" and "waters beneath the earth" supplied the water. This obviously was water that covered the entire earth in the region that Noah lived in.

    When the Scriptures speak of "all flesh," it can refer to the context of those whose flesh is being referred to. It is context that determines *whose flesh" it is that is being referred to. "All the flesh" of who? Israel. Israel is in the context of this Jewish judgment.

    The argument that this has to do with Jewish judgment in this literal generation is simply a matter of defining the meaning of "generation." It refers to those alive at the time Jesus delivered this Discourse.



    As I said, the Great Distress mentioned in all 3 versions refer to the same thing because logically, they are all quoting from the exact same Discourse! To apply difference meanings to the same Discourse is irrational, to me.

    Yes, this is a Discourse about the judgment and future of Israel. At the time Israel was still the "chosen nation," the elect of God. The Gentile Church had not been born yet. And so, Jesus is addressing the fate of Israel, just as the Prophets had done in the past. There is nothing odd or unusual about this.

    Naturally, this is addressed, however, to *believers,* because only they would respond to and obey Jesus. They had to know the fate of their own nation because they would be affected by the state of the nation following judgment.

    Contrary to what is often thought, this is not a series of predictions about the return of Christ, with the idea that the 2nd Coming is more important than the events of 70 AD. No, historical judgments are part of human judgment, and are just as important as final judgment.

    In the time of Jesus Jews had to decide what they were going to follow--Jesus or corrupt Jewish religion. Most of them chose to follow Jewish religion to the exclusion of Jesus and had their religion taken away from them. That is what the 70 AD judgment was all about.

    But for believers, they were not trying to prognosticate about the 2nd Coming. They weren't reading their palms or looking into crystal balls. That is the opposite of what Jesus was trying to teach!

    Jesus was teaching that eschatology is the domain of God, and preparing for the future Kingdom is a matter of what we choose to do *today!* And so, the more immediate need for the Jews at this time was choosing for Jesus, and not turning to Jewish religion to the exclusion of Jesus. This was vital, and the thing that prompted the Olivet Discourse.

    I'm engaged in a discussion with my brother right now, and he prefers to see the AoD as the Antichrist, based on word meanings. I base my interpretation, by contrast, on an usual set of word meanings in the light of the *context.* I'm continuing to discuss these things with him, and if you're interested I'll let you in on some of the discussion?
    You say :"Christians are, of course, going to be caught up in this because *the 1st Christians were numbered among the Jews!*"
    . Once again wrong, they were not caught up in that terrible judgment for the unsaved. Christians were warned to escape the 70AD judgment which was a judgment on unsaved Israel. That distress is unlike Matthew 24:22 which affects the elect. I have explained this again and again yet you do not deal with the differences.

    Yes Jesus was answering two questions about the temple destruction and the second coming, but he does not stick exclusively to those two questions, and gives many further warnings about ADDITIONAL tribulations and persecutions. So he expanded his answer to provide the saved with loads of advice for the period before 70AD, and during 70 AD, and the period prior to the second coming. You are fixated on 70 AD, the OD IS NOT fixated on 70AD. Proof is in my quotes. My proof is from various quotes within the OD , you only quote the opening sentences.

    You use the flood as evidence for your position on the whole world, unfortunately that would entail an entire new thread. There is actually enough water for a flood provided the ocean floor and continents had flatter land surfaces. And earlier landscapes were flatter before mountain building tectonic activity occurred during and after the PT boundary. The flood is a topic for another thread, but all I am saying is that your example is debatable.

    But even if you are correct that the term whole world does not mean whole world, these following sentences give a sense of the end of this age and not 70AD, which makes your point irrelevant:
    14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.
    21 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; but for the [c]elect’s sake those days will be shortened.


    Luke 21 does not even mention the diaspora, in wars the captives are led away. The description stops there. Thus your "extended period" being a worse tribulation than the rest is not only less likely due to most disasters being measured by number of deaths, the extended period is not found in the text, and even Matthew 24:22 relates a distress to great numbers killed, NOT time.

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,786

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    You say :"Christians are, of course, going to be caught up in this because *the 1st Christians were numbered among the Jews!*"
    . Once again wrong, they were not caught up in that terrible judgment for the unsaved. Christians were warned to escape the 70AD judgment which was a judgment on unsaved Israel. That distress is unlike Matthew 24:22 which affects the elect. I have explained this again and again yet you do not deal with the differences.
    I cannot deal with differences that I don't see as existing! Believing Jews obviously were caught up in the experience that befell all Jews. Although the judgment was pointed towards unbelieving Jews, who had been wicked, innocent Jews are always casualties in a national judgment. For example, the Prophet Jeremiah was caught up in the Babylonian Judgment, even though that judgment was pointed at unbelieving, rebellious Israel, and not at Jeremiah.

    The early believing Jews clearly faced the same decision that all Jews faced in their time. They had to decide for or against Jesus. If against, they would be part of the same judgment that all Jews would be faced with. And they would face the eternal loss of God's Kingdom. And even if they endured in their faith, which they were called to do in this time, they would continue to face persecution by their fellow Jews and also by the unbelieving world outside of Israel. They would see the beginning signs of judgment, such as wars and rumors of wars. And they would also be called upon, in this time, to proclaim the gospel as a defense against those who would persecute them.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    Yes Jesus was answering two questions about the temple destruction and the second coming, but he does not stick exclusively to those two questions, and gives many further warnings about ADDITIONAL tribulations and persecutions. So he expanded his answer to provide the saved with loads of advice for the period before 70AD, and during 70 AD, and the period prior to the second coming. You are fixated on 70 AD, the OD IS NOT fixated on 70AD. Proof is in my quotes. My proof is from various quotes within the OD , you only quote the opening sentences.
    No, I'm not just quoting the opening sentence, as critical as that is in determining the scope of the Discourse. If the "birth pains" were preliminary to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, that also is being quoted as relevant preliminary signs leading to 70 AD. And if the AoD is in fact the 70 AD judgment, then that also is relevant as a quotation of the same. It really depends on how the passage is to be interpreted.

    None of this is about predicting signs before the 2nd Coming. Rather, it is about recognizing the signs of judgment in their own generation! This had ramifications with respect to eternal judgment. How Jews decided for or against Jesus in their own generation would determine their eternal fate. As such, this was an important preparation for God's Kingdom. This is what made comparison of the Kingdom of God and the judgment of Israel in 70 AD so critical!

    I believe reference to the 2nd Coming is not for *prognostication,* or prediction. Rather, it is for *comparison.* Jesus pointed out that as the 2nd Coming is as much for judgment as for salvation, so his 1st coming was as much for judgment against the Jews as for salvation of the Jews.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    You use the flood as evidence for your position on the whole world, unfortunately that would entail an entire new thread. There is actually enough water for a flood provided the ocean floor and continents had flatter land surfaces. And earlier landscapes were flatter before mountain building tectonic activity occurred during and after the PT boundary. The flood is a topic for another thread, but all I am saying is that your example is debatable.
    Yes, this is debatable, and the reason why I hesitated to bring it up. No, even a flat earth would not hold as much water as you think. As deep as the ocean is, there is an enormous amount of land above sea level. I have a book that considered that, "The Christian View of Science and Creation," by Bernard Ram. He is not a liberal, but he does consider the use of "all the earth" from a non-scientific outlook in Noah's time.

    If you're standing on the earth, and never knew the earth was round, your view of an enormous local flood would literally cover the "whole earth." This is speaking of water reaching from east to west, north to sound, *in your vision.* This is not speaking of a *globe!*

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    But even if you are correct that the term whole world does not mean whole world, these following sentences give a sense of the end of this age and not 70AD, which makes your point irrelevant:
    14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.
    21 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; but for the [c]elect’s sake those days will be shortened.


    Luke 21 does not even mention the diaspora, in wars the captives are led away. The description stops there. Thus your "extended period" being a worse tribulation than the rest is not only less likely due to most disasters being measured by number of deaths, the extended period is not found in the text, and even Matthew 24:22 relates a distress to great numbers killed, NOT time.
    I'll have to get back...

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,484

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I cannot deal with differences that I don't see as existing! Believing Jews obviously were caught up in the experience that befell all Jews. Although the judgment was pointed towards unbelieving Jews, who had been wicked, innocent Jews are always casualties in a national judgment. For example, the Prophet Jeremiah was caught up in the Babylonian Judgment, even though that judgment was pointed at unbelieving, rebellious Israel, and not at Jeremiah.

    The early believing Jews clearly faced the same decision that all Jews faced in their time. They had to decide for or against Jesus. If against, they would be part of the same judgment that all Jews would be faced with. And they would face the eternal loss of God's Kingdom. And even if they endured in their faith, which they were called to do in this time, they would continue to face persecution by their fellow Jews and also by the unbelieving world outside of Israel. They would see the beginning signs of judgment, such as wars and rumors of wars. And they would also be called upon, in this time, to proclaim the gospel as a defense against those who would persecute them.



    No, I'm not just quoting the opening sentence, as critical as that is in determining the scope of the Discourse. If the "birth pains" were preliminary to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, that also is being quoted as relevant preliminary signs leading to 70 AD. And if the AoD is in fact the 70 AD judgment, then that also is relevant as a quotation of the same. It really depends on how the passage is to be interpreted.

    None of this is about predicting signs before the 2nd Coming. Rather, it is about recognizing the signs of judgment in their own generation! This had ramifications with respect to eternal judgment. How Jews decided for or against Jesus in their own generation would determine their eternal fate. As such, this was an important preparation for God's Kingdom. This is what made comparison of the Kingdom of God and the judgment of Israel in 70 AD so critical!

    I believe reference to the 2nd Coming is not for *prognostication,* or prediction. Rather, it is for *comparison.* Jesus pointed out that as the 2nd Coming is as much for judgment as for salvation, so his 1st coming was as much for judgment against the Jews as for salvation of the Jews.



    Yes, this is debatable, and the reason why I hesitated to bring it up. No, even a flat earth would not hold as much water as you think. As deep as the ocean is, there is an enormous amount of land above sea level. I have a book that considered that, "The Christian View of Science and Creation," by Bernard Ram. He is not a liberal, but he does consider the use of "all the earth" from a non-scientific outlook in Noah's time.

    If you're standing on the earth, and never knew the earth was round, your view of an enormous local flood would literally cover the "whole earth." This is speaking of water reaching from east to west, north to sound, *in your vision.* This is not speaking of a *globe!*


    I'll have to get back...
    Wikipedia: Flight to Pella:
    ""The fourth-century church fathers Eusebius and Epiphanius of Salamis cite a tradition that before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 the Jerusalem Christians had been miraculously warned to flee to Pella (Tabaquat Fahil) in the region of the Decapolis across the Jordan River. The flight to Pella probably did not include the Ebionites.""

    And sure enough the warning from Jesus was pretty clear, the moment there was any conflict, any Christian with any common sense would have kept clear of the Jerusalem area because Jesus was clear this was a war of JUDGMENT:
    20 “But when you (SAVED) see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those (SAVED) who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those (SAVED) who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance (FOR THE UNSAVED) , that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! (UNSAVED) For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people (UNSAVED PEOPLE). 24 And they (UNSAVED WHO DO NOT ESCAPE) will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations.

    There are two groups of people in the above verses. Those who are aware of the judgment and escape, and those who are punished.(vengeance). The other distress comparable to world disasters is in more end-times context and more easily matches with the 3.5 years of persecution as per Daniel 7 and Rev 13.
    Here is the more end-times context:
    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.
    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.


    There are threads to discuss the flood, your views thereon are once again spattered with emphatic statements, yet the only mountain range that was of any significant height before the PT boundary was the Appalachians, and the top of it was ......washed away leaving no evidence how high it was. Nearly all other mountain building tectonic activity occurred during and AFTER the PT boundary. Yet it is at the PT boundary where we see a strong transgressive event, whereby every continental landmass showed marine incursions deep into the flat landscape of the continental landmasses. The earth was stripped of vegetation at that time, and there were huge extinctions. Scientists call that event the "great death". It started out when the fountains of the great deep burst forth in the greatest volcanic event the world has ever known, soon the ice caps and the mass glaciation of Gondwana had melted, resulting in raised sea levels that devastated the continental interiors of the super-continent. These are all scientific facts. Thereafter the regression caused its own series of problems, probably draining into the deep cracks caused by the break-up of Gondwana in what is now the Atlantic. The regressive event caused major unconformities, losing some of the fossil record of the earlier transgressive event. These are the actual facts. Oh and the ocean covers the earth at an average depth of 3688M over 71 percent of the earth's surface. If we spread it out a little more it would cover the whole earth by 2.6 km. that is fact, so much for not enough water

    Regarding the flood and our discussion , I think you need more fact-focus rather than making sweeping statements. I am still waiting to hear your evidence for any advantage in any one of our disagreements in this thread. Instead you have this general appeal to some non-existent theme of the OD when anyone actually reading the OD will see just a few short sentences focussed on 70AD. Which is specifically a punishment for unsaved Israel.

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,786

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Here is the more end-times context:
    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.
    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.
    I think I just realized something, that you are looking at this *way different* than how I'm looking at it! And maybe this is causing some of our confusion? I had to ask myself, Why is he saying this?:

    "The other distress comparable to world disasters is in more end-times context and more easily matches with the 3.5 years of persecution as per Daniel 7 and Rev 13."

    How on earth do you get the idea there is another distress? The distress initially is indicated to be the dispersion of the Jews beginning with the destruction of Jerusalem. And it ends at the cessation of the "times of the Gentiles." How is there any space for another distress, for a different distress?

    But then I think I realized that you were reading "the end" as the "endtimes?" When you quote Jesus saying, "The gospel will be preached to all, and then the end will come," you are reading "the end" as "the endtimes?"

    I read it like this: When the gospel mission is done, the age is finished, and there is nothing left in the age at all.
    But you seem to read it like this: When the gospel mission comes to completion, then an endtimes scenario begins.
    Do I have this right?

    If so, I can understand how you might think that following the gospel mission, and following the dispersion of the Jews, there will be *another endtimes scenario.* Is that how you're looking at this? I'm just curious, because clearly we're not connecting on this matter. We should be able to come up with common conclusions, and we're not!

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    There are threads to discuss the flood, your views thereon are once again spattered with emphatic statements, yet the only mountain range that was of any significant height before the PT boundary was the Appalachians, and the top of it was ......washed away leaving no evidence how high it was. Nearly all other mountain building tectonic activity occurred during and AFTER the PT boundary. Yet it is at the PT boundary where we see a strong transgressive event, whereby every continental landmass showed marine incursions deep into the flat landscape of the continental landmasses. The earth was stripped of vegetation at that time, and there were huge extinctions. Scientists call that event the "great death". It started out when the fountains of the great deep burst forth in the greatest volcanic event the world has ever known, soon the ice caps and the mass glaciation of Gondwana had melted, resulting in raised sea levels that devastated the continental interiors of the super-continent. These are all scientific facts. Thereafter the regression caused its own series of problems, probably draining into the deep cracks caused by the break-up of Gondwana in what is now the Atlantic. The regressive event caused major unconformities, losing some of the fossil record of the earlier transgressive event. These are the actual facts. Oh and the ocean covers the earth at an average depth of 3688M over 71 percent of the earth's surface. If we spread it out a little more it would cover the whole earth by 2.6 km. that is fact, so much for not enough water
    It's off the beaten path, but I will try to indulge you, though I'm hardly a scientist!

    "There is the problem of the amount of water required by a universal flood. All the waters of the heavens, poured all over the earth, would amount to a sheath seven inches thick. If the earth were a perfect sphere so that all the waters of the ocean covered it, the depth of the ocean would be two and one-half to three miles. To cover the highest mountains would require eight times more water than we now have. It would have involved a great creation of water to have covered the entire globe, but no such creation act is hinted at in the Scriptures." Bernard Ramm "The Christian View of Science and Scripture"

    So yes, you're right--if the earth was a perfect sphere, you would have some depth of water. But there are other problems with this view, not the least of which is the fact the earth in Noah's time period was *not* a perfect sphere, since there are very old mountains with undisturbed fauna. If you're interested in the *enormous* problems associated with the theory of a universal flood, we can take up that subject elsewhere? Ramm's book was mind-changing for me!

    Much of the features you may refer to, seeming to indicate a universal flood, may be the product of an Ice Age, much older than the 2-3000 BC time period in which the Flood likely happened. According to Ramm there is zero proof for a universal flood in this time period. And at any rate, it would destroyed a lot of fish that we still have with us today--the mix of fresh and salt water. You can cite miracle after miracle, but this judgment is explained in Scriptures to be a natural phenomena caused by God's word.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    Regarding the flood and our discussion , I think you need more fact-focus rather than making sweeping statements. I am still waiting to hear your evidence for any advantage in any one of our disagreements in this thread. Instead you have this general appeal to some non-existent theme of the OD when anyone actually reading the OD will see just a few short sentences focussed on 70AD. Which is specifically a punishment for unsaved Israel.
    We need to clear up how we are reading "the end" first? Thank you.

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,484

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    It's off the beaten path, but I will try to indulge you, though I'm hardly a scientist!

    "There is the problem of the amount of water required by a universal flood. All the waters of the heavens, poured all over the earth, would amount to a sheath seven inches thick. If the earth were a perfect sphere so that all the waters of the ocean covered it, the depth of the ocean would be two and one-half to three miles. To cover the highest mountains would require eight times more water than we now have. It would have involved a great creation of water to have covered the entire globe, but no such creation act is hinted at in the Scriptures." Bernard Ramm "The Christian View of Science and Scripture"

    So yes, you're right--if the earth was a perfect sphere, you would have some depth of water. But there are other problems with this view, not the least of which is the fact the earth in Noah's time period was *not* a perfect sphere, since there are very old mountains with undisturbed fauna. If you're interested in the *enormous* problems associated with the theory of a universal flood, we can take up that subject elsewhere? Ramm's book was mind-changing for me!

    Much of the features you may refer to, seeming to indicate a universal flood, may be the product of an Ice Age, much older than the 2-3000 BC time period in which the Flood likely happened. According to Ramm there is zero proof for a universal flood in this time period. And at any rate, it would destroyed a lot of fish that we still have with us today--the mix of fresh and salt water. You can cite miracle after miracle, but this judgment is explained in Scriptures to be a natural phenomena caused by God's word.
    I believe that the flood occurred at the PT boundary. At this stage there were no proven high mountain ranges, the landscape was flatter under the oceans and on the continents. This ruins all your objections to a lack of volume of water for a universal flood. The source of the water was NOT just rain according to the bible story. But I already mentioned the lack of mountain ranges back then, a point you seemed to miss, because you are still asserting your "highest mountains" argument. You are literally wasting my time unless you are 1) prepared to actually read what I say
    2) Prepared to investigate the extent of mountain building activity up to the PT boundary

    Please don't waste my time on this discussion unless you are willing to look into what mountain ranges existed through the ages. Without mountain ranges and ocean depths, there is more than enough water. Plus the processes were there as well (Siberian Traps/melted ice caps/continental flooding)

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,484

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I think I just realized something, that you are looking at this *way different* than how I'm looking at it! And maybe this is causing some of our confusion? I had to ask myself, Why is he saying this?:

    "The other distress comparable to world disasters is in more end-times context and more easily matches with the 3.5 years of persecution as per Daniel 7 and Rev 13."

    How on earth do you get the idea there is another distress? The distress initially is indicated to be the dispersion of the Jews beginning with the destruction of Jerusalem. And it ends at the cessation of the "times of the Gentiles." How is there any space for another distress, for a different distress?

    But then I think I realized that you were reading "the end" as the "endtimes?" When you quote Jesus saying, "The gospel will be preached to all, and then the end will come," you are reading "the end" as "the endtimes?"

    I read it like this: When the gospel mission is done, the age is finished, and there is nothing left in the age at all.
    But you seem to read it like this: When the gospel mission comes to completion, then an endtimes scenario begins.
    Do I have this right?

    If so, I can understand how you might think that following the gospel mission, and following the dispersion of the Jews, there will be *another endtimes scenario.* Is that how you're looking at this? I'm just curious, because clearly we're not connecting on this matter. We should be able to come up with common conclusions, and we're not!
    You just realised I am looking at verses differently to you? I have been waiting throughout many posts for your interpretation of those verses. I regard your lack of concentration on reading my posts as quite disturbing considering this is a discussion board. More reading and less writing will be greatly appreciated please.

    Jesus was answering these questions, one about the temple, and one about the second coming:
    when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”

    When the OD mentions the end, it is more likely to be referring to the finalisation of everything than 70AD. An earlier end is the less likely view, because that isn't really an end is it? Please show how your view of the end has an advantage over my view. These verses point to a vast end-times distress that even affects the elect and occurs after the gospel is preached to ALL NATIONS, not just the WHOLE WORLD:
    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.
    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.


    That distress is unlike the local distress of a few years mentioned in a few verses of Luke 21:20-24 and refers to the Jewish-Roman War and is a punishment (punishment does not affect the elect)

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,786

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    I believe that the flood occurred at the PT boundary. At this stage there were no proven high mountain ranges, the landscape was flatter under the oceans and on the continents. This ruins all your objections to a lack of volume of water for a universal flood. The source of the water was NOT just rain according to the bible story. But I already mentioned the lack of mountain ranges back then, a point you seemed to miss, because you are still asserting your "highest mountains" argument. You are literally wasting my time unless you are 1) prepared to actually read what I say
    2) Prepared to investigate the extent of mountain building activity up to the PT boundary

    Please don't waste my time on this discussion unless you are willing to look into what mountain ranges existed through the ages. Without mountain ranges and ocean depths, there is more than enough water. Plus the processes were there as well (Siberian Traps/melted ice caps/continental flooding)
    You're beginning to lose your patience. I'm not wasting your time. I've read you, and I've read the book I mentioned.

    The Ice Age took place over 10,000 BC. The Flood took place somewhere between 2000-3000 BC. There were in fact mountain ranges mentioned in Scriptures at the time of the Flood.

    Gen 7.17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered.

    Unless you have a *perfect* sphere at the time of the Flood, you're not going to have enough water to cover the entire globe, and all of its topography. There are mountain ranges older than 10,000 BC! We know this by the science of geo-chronology.

    I don't know what you mean by PT boundary, unless you're referring to something like the KT boundary? In the case of the latter, we're talking about many millions of years before Adam came into existence, and it could not have anything to do with the Flood.

    But you're in a different country, I believe, and may use different English terms than we do here in the US? What exactly is the "PT boundary?"

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,786

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    You just realised I am looking at verses differently to you? I have been waiting throughout many posts for your interpretation of those verses. I regard your lack of concentration on reading my posts as quite disturbing considering this is a discussion board. More reading and less writing will be greatly appreciated please.
    What I'm noticing is that you're beginning to lose your patience. I commonly find this happening when someone is losing an argument. If you wish me to take your arguments seriously, and not as a contentious argument, then please calm down.

    If you don't want to take things slowly, and repetitively, we can end the discussion right here? I have no wish to develop hostile relations with you, on any subject that causes division.

    No, you yourself did not spell out any difference between how you were using "end" and how I was using "end." Why do you think I should've noticed it if you didn't either?

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    Jesus was answering these questions, one about the temple, and one about the second coming:
    when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”

    When the OD mentions the end, it is more likely to be referring to the finalisation of everything than 70AD.
    You see, this kind of definition of "end" is very ambiguous to me, and prompted me on my own to review it. You never indicated a "finalization." For me, "end" means "end." It is not a finalization process, but an actual termination point. Looking at "end" as a "process" would result in a very different interpretation of the passage. As such, this sounds much more like Dispensationalism--something that I haven't maintained in my underlying assumptions since the early 70s!

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    An earlier end is the less likely view, because that isn't really an end is it? Please show how your view of the end has an advantage over my view.
    I will, if you have patience?
    1) The natural meaning of "end" is the termination of a process, and not the beginning of a finalization process. I grant you that "end" can be used as a finalization process. It is therefore the *context* that determines how "end" is used.
    2) The "end" in context is associated with the 2nd Coming of Christ, the termination point of the "times of the Gentiles," which is biblically portrayed as the transition to Christ's Kingdom. As such, there is no "process" in between the end of the "times of the Gentiles" and the beginning of Christ's Kingdom. It is an *immediate transition.*

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    These verses point to a vast end-times distress that even affects the elect and occurs after the gospel is preached to ALL NATIONS, not just the WHOLE WORLD:
    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.
    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.
    I see. You do see this through a Dispensationalist-kind of lens, regardless of whether you are a Dispensationalist. You seem to have bought into their own underlying assumptions, that there is this transition from the "Church age" to the "Jewish age." I believe there is no "dispensationalist distinction" between Jews and Christians in the NT age. Clearly, the Jews have lost the connection between their political state and the Kingdom of God. But they will not reestablish this connection, along with other Christians, until the Kingdom of Christ actually arrives.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    That distress is unlike the local distress of a few years mentioned in a few verses of Luke 21:20-24 and refers to the Jewish-Roman War and is a punishment (punishment does not affect the elect)
    That "punishment" and that "distress" is said to last until the *end of the age,* and not until the end of the "Church Age."

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,484

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    What I'm noticing is that you're beginning to lose your patience. I commonly find this happening when someone is losing an argument. If you wish me to take your arguments seriously, and not as a contentious argument, then please calm down.

    If you don't want to take things slowly, and repetitively, we can end the discussion right here? I have no wish to develop hostile relations with you, on any subject that causes division.

    No, you yourself did not spell out any difference between how you were using "end" and how I was using "end." Why do you think I should've noticed it if you didn't either?

    You see, this kind of definition of "end" is very ambiguous to me, and prompted me on my own to review it. You never indicated a "finalization." For me, "end" means "end." It is not a finalization process, but an actual termination point. Looking at "end" as a "process" would result in a very different interpretation of the passage. As such, this sounds much more like Dispensationalism--something that I haven't maintained in my underlying assumptions since the early 70s!

    I will, if you have patience?
    1) The natural meaning of "end" is the termination of a process, and not the beginning of a finalization process. I grant you that "end" can be used as a finalization process. It is therefore the *context* that determines how "end" is used.
    2) The "end" in context is associated with the 2nd Coming of Christ, the termination point of the "times of the Gentiles," which is biblically portrayed as the transition to Christ's Kingdom. As such, there is no "process" in between the end of the "times of the Gentiles" and the beginning of Christ's Kingdom. It is an *immediate transition.*



    I see. You do see this through a Dispensationalist-kind of lens, regardless of whether you are a Dispensationalist. You seem to have bought into their own underlying assumptions, that there is this transition from the "Church age" to the "Jewish age." I believe there is no "dispensationalist distinction" between Jews and Christians in the NT age. Clearly, the Jews have lost the connection between their political state and the Kingdom of God. But they will not reestablish this connection, along with other Christians, until the Kingdom of Christ actually arrives.
    I'm curious why anyone would want to discuss things slowly and repetitively. I prefer reaching quick conclusions myself. It is also easier for others to follow instead of endless repetitive posts which basically ruin the forum for everyone because less people will want to view such boring material. And it does get boring if the posts are long and don't seem to be moving along. So even if it is not your preferred style, think of the rest of us. If you care about the rest of us and our preferences.

    I was obviously seeing the word "end" in end-times GT context, not in 70 AD context. This is the essence of the terms of reference of this discussion.

    That "punishment" and that "distress" is said to last until the *end of the age,* and not until the end of the "Church Age."
    The Luke 21 distress occurs "in the land", and to those specific people who are killed or removed to OTHER LANDS. It is NOT an ongoing distress, the captives were led away to other lands, no more "distress in the land"
    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.

    That distress is certainly different to the other distress occurring IMMEDIATELY BEFORE the signs in the sky:
    “Immediately after the distress of those days “‘the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light

    The other distress is not a local siege on Jerusalem, but is greater than WW2 !!! 21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.

    The elect were given instructions to escape the punishment on unsaved Israel, and history says they did, UNLIKE the future distress which will affect the elect:
    “If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,484

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    You're beginning to lose your patience. I'm not wasting your time. I've read you, and I've read the book I mentioned.

    The Ice Age took place over 10,000 BC. The Flood took place somewhere between 2000-3000 BC. There were in fact mountain ranges mentioned in Scriptures at the time of the Flood.

    Gen 7.17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered.

    Unless you have a *perfect* sphere at the time of the Flood, you're not going to have enough water to cover the entire globe, and all of its topography. There are mountain ranges older than 10,000 BC! We know this by the science of geo-chronology.

    I don't know what you mean by PT boundary, unless you're referring to something like the KT boundary? In the case of the latter, we're talking about many millions of years before Adam came into existence, and it could not have anything to do with the Flood.

    But you're in a different country, I believe, and may use different English terms than we do here in the US? What exactly is the "PT boundary?"
    If you don't mind I am moving this discussion about the flood into a flood thread, it is not relevant in the end-times. But I would like to continue this chat because it is one of my pet interests. Please go to the link:

    https://bibleforums.org/showthread.p...ce-For-a-Flood

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,786

    Re: An historicist view of the Olivet Discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    I'm curious why anyone would want to discuss things slowly and repetitively. I prefer reaching quick conclusions myself. It is also easier for others to follow instead of endless repetitive posts which basically ruin the forum for everyone because less people will want to view such boring material. And it does get boring if the posts are long and don't seem to be moving along. So even if it is not your preferred style, think of the rest of us. If you care about the rest of us and our preferences.
    Discussing how things are processed, and how long it takes to change minds, is another discussion entirely. I'm less concerned with your "boredom" than with the truth, as I see it.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    I was obviously seeing the word "end" in end-times GT context, not in 70 AD context. This is the essence of the terms of reference of this discussion.
    That doesn't answer my question. "End" can be used as an "end process" or it can be used as an absolute terminal point. Which definition are you using in this context?

    For example, some may see the Dispersion of the Jews as an historical event, leading to an "end-time scenario," including the Great Tribulation of the Antichrist. The Jewish Diaspora, in this sense, does *not* lead to an absolute terminal point, but only to an end-times process, in which God's judgment is wrapped up on earth in a 7 year period of judgment.

    My view is that the Jewish Dispersion ends with the *terminal point* of the "times of the Gentiles." At that point, the age comes to an absolute end, with no more end-times scenario. If you understand the difference I'm making, please be clear about it?

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    The Luke 21 distress occurs "in the land", and to those specific people who are killed or removed to OTHER LANDS. It is NOT an ongoing distress, the captives were led away to other lands, no more "distress in the land"
    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.
    The Great Distress, you say, is limited to the initial removal of the Jews from the land? So, you're saying that the Great Distress, Jesus talked about, ended with the initial deportations of Jews from Palestine in the 1st two centuries? And you then say that there has been no more Great Distress for the Jewish People over the last two millennia?

    As I said, Jesus indicated this Great Distress would have an absolute terminal point at the 2nd Coming, when "the times of the Gentiles" come to an end. I can't agree that this Distress covers anything less than the entire NT era, in which the Jews are waiting for their Age to Come, or Jewish Hope! This is why this is the greatest punishment of the Jews in history, and never to be repeated, because it is the *longest* Jewish punishment in history, and ends with a final restoration of Israel.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    That distress is certainly different to the other distress occurring IMMEDIATELY BEFORE the signs in the sky:
    “Immediately after the distress of those days “‘the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light
    You think the "signs in the sky" is a "distress?" How are signs in the sky "great distress?" Plainly, Jesus spoke of a great distress associated with Jewish punishment. That involved the initial dispersion of Jews from their land. But I see no distinction with a 2nd distress?

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    The other distress is not a local siege on Jerusalem, but is greater than WW2 !!! 21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.

    The elect were given instructions to escape the punishment on unsaved Israel, and history says they did, UNLIKE the future distress which will affect the elect:
    “If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.
    You seem to be accepting the underlying assumption that Dispensationalists have, that the Great Tribulation associated with Antichrist is the most horrendous in history! I think that is pure sensationalism! There have been many periods in history of great brutality and great massacres. Who is to say one is worse than another?

    What makes this Jewish punishment worse than any other is its sheer length of time. It is so long that Replacement Theology was created to explain the seeming expiration of the Jewish People as God's People. The Church has effectively replaced them! (I don't agree with this.)

    Antichrist will be brutal like pagan leaders before him, and will be dominated by Satan like Hitler before him. There will be brutal persecution of Christians, just like Catholics brutally massacred the early Protestants.

    However, this is not the meaning of "Great Tribulation." It is not a term associated with the final 3.5 years of this age, and associated with the Antichrist! There is one place that remotely indicates this, in Rev 7. But there is no indication that this Tribulation actually began with the rise of Antichrist!

    I would agree with you in one sense, though, and that is in the fact that Christian persecution seems to represent a secondary element of distress beyond that of a purely Jewish punishment. But that is a different subject.

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
  •