Paradise Cafe Discussions - A Place For Bible Research And Christian Encouragement

Matthew 24:6
"You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end.

Mark 13:7
"When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be frightened; those things must take place; but that is not yet the end.


since it may be near impossible to know if the world wars had many minor war rumors this may be futile.

I havr noticed that I am hearing the word war thrown around alot by many smaller country's,

eg.
cuba, north korea, venezula, iran and groups that are not even country's like hezbolla.

I am just wondering if this could be a fit as we have the making for a fit in my opionion.

This has me wondering, our local revelations decoder INTP thinks this particular prophecy has come and gone.
But has it or were their multiple ends so to speak? one for that age and the other for the whole system of things under satan.?


edited to add
I am wondering how many nations were at war around 70ce when the roman army destroyed the temple mount. pls feel free anyone to correct me I am no historian.
I wonder if the whole of the world was at war and many rumors of war were spreading? and would it really be like that at that time knowing that Rome was all powerfull? how could it be multiple wars and kingdoms and nations all involved and the "world" know it?
Just some ????s I have.

sorry to double post.

mark:13
24"But in those days, after that tribulation, ®THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT,
25(S)AND THE STARS WILL BE FALLING from heaven, and the powers that are in the heavens will be shaken.

26"Then they will see (T)THE SON OF MAN (U)COMING IN CLOUDS with great power and glory.

27"And then He will send forth the angels, and (V)will gather together His elect from the four winds, (W)from the farthest end of the earth to the farthest end of heaven.
28"Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near.

29"Even so, you too, when you see these things happening, recognize that He is near, right at the door.

30"Truly I say to you, this [b]generation will not pass away until all these things take place.


Matthew 24:22
"Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.



this raises a few questions to me.
for the preterist what was cut short after the tribulation of jeruselem? was not it destroyed and the isrealite nations desolved completely? and then the land was constantly fought over in the dark ages?

and if the elect were gathered to christ that means no more elect are to be gathered it was a one time thing it seems.

I am fine with that but that makes all people who have walked the earth since not of the elect.

So where does it leave us?
Just some thoughts

I believe that the chldren of the promise are the Sun/moon and stars at this point. I think it is when the third get pulled from heaven during the tribulation
I think they will be darkend or "shut up" so to speak as they will fear being a light in this dark world. All will be against them.
the loss of hope and maybe the begining of the fade to nothing and why the second coming must take place as all would be lost.
they will be as good as they can be. if left in a world without GOD's law it would eventually wear them out like an old rag and they would become good for nothing. they cannot be pushed to the breaking point that they are just broken.

Hi Totaldismay

Even if it hasn't come and gone, I would suggest Jesus was specifically telling us NOT to do what many Christians do today ... that is, think a "war" or "rumor of war" indicates the nearness of the end. Jesus' words seems to specifically counsel against that.

OK, I guess I'd better answer this, since most here primarily see Jesus' words as talking about our future ... and I don't.

Jesus doesn't say the whole world would be at war... he said " nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom", as part of "a beginning of pangs of distress". (The WTS has conditioned you to read a World War into this passage... so you can associate it with 1914, remember.)

I think he was more specifically referring to events from about 66AD onwards. At this time, Judea in the east rebelled from Rome. Shortly afterwards, Gaul in the north rebelled. So these former provinces of Rome needed to be put down by the other kingdoms and nations that comprised both the Roman empire, and its allies.

In 68AD, the Roman emperor Nero died, and Rome itself was also plunged into civil war, with various people becoming emperor and then being killed ... further pitting Romans and others of various nations and kingdoms against one another.

At this point (68AD), Rome was NOT all powerful. It was in a state of near collapse. It was like a temporarily abyssed wild beast with a head cut off, as it were. (No, my imagery isn't coincidental here).

The trick is, not to read more in Jesus' words than is there. Nowhere does Jesus talk about a "world war". Guess who put that idea into your head?

The days of the tribulation were cut short. That's what Jesus says ... on account of the chosen ones.

No, Jerusalem wasn't destroyed completely. In fact, it has ALWAYS been inhabited since 70AD ... the Romans forbidding Jews to live there, although others could ... but small numbers of Jews were allowed to live there after the rule of Christian emperor Constantine in the 4th century. His wife, Helen, built lots of churches there.

However, it didn't return to rule of Israel until 1967AD, in the Six Day War.

So Jerusalem was never completely destroyed, and Jews were not completely wiped out, because the days of the great tribulation were cut short. The "chosen ones" Jesus was referring to here, in my opinion, were primarily the Jewish Christians ... although Satan was no doubt trying to crush ALL Christians by this time, so no doubt he was restrained from doing so.

Yes, the gathering of the "elect" took place in the 1st century ... but that doesn't mean a harvest couldn't continue. In any harvest, you always have "firstfruits". All those gathered to Jesus when he came against Jerusalem in the 1st century were "firstfruits", and I believe are even described as such in Revelation 14.

The problem is, you are still looking at some scriptures through the "conditioning" of the WTS. I'm not saying they're wrong about everything ... but they twisted so many scriptures to fit their own dodgy prophetic interpretations, that you have to literally look at them through a fresh set of eyes. Picture yourself sitting there, in 33AD, as a Jew listening to Jesus ... and ask, what would these words mean to YOU?

You would certainly NOT be thinking about anything connected with the 21st century, that's for sure :D

Seriously... try reading Mathew 24 from that perspective, sitting on the mount of olives, as a Jew who loves the Temple and Jerusalem ... and feel the revolutionary and dangerous nature of those words he is speaking to you.

Hi INtp,

First let me say that I will continue the sun/moon stars thought here instead of the other thread.. for simplicity.

and my communication style apparently has escaped you as you misread the other thread completely.

the sun moon and stars were interpreted in the bible.
and two others picked up on my post and seen that I do understand who they are. they are isrealites.

the problem is is that you keep a one track mind yourself. as you say I am stuck with wt thinking. I think you are mistaken but we shall see.
I am more or less trying to figure out they where we are and what good is all this talking about the bible if we have nothing to look for to "stay awake"

I am not ading anything to what I have read I may be wrong but what I read says
the end of the age would come after a great many things and the events you decribe seem to happen in such a short time span that it seems impossible to begin and yet be "not yet"
But even so if it was that quickfine.
it stills leaves the elct all being gatherd at one point in time if you read it. not over a period of time.
I am ok with that too.
it then goes into a couple of storys about wise virgins and talents to help divide up the good slave from the bad.

this is the other part that throws all things happening in the past off.
as it means Judgement started back then, those who were to inherit the kingdom were given it and .


so as it reads to me if it is linear is
we have the signs leading to a tribulation upon the "sun/moon stars.
those very same people would be hated by the nations.
they would get tortured and killed, they would betray eachother as well as false prophets arise. the gospel would be preached then the end. at this end Jesus returns gathers the elect from all corners of the globe.

so ok lots of stuff seems to fit the fall of jeruselm.

But it was not the jews who were the elect. It was the christians who were out preaching the gospel throught the world. so where were these christians gather to? and for that matter why? were they all killed so that the "gathering" was up to heaven?
if so ok fine .
again gathering the elect is a " ONE time thing in all the passages.
Not over 2 thousand years.

which is fine cause it would make the elect true isrealites from the twelve tribes and that would explain alot. but it also means no more elect.

another spot that losses something is if the tribulation was the "fall of jeruslem" then the nations have been gatherd and the judging work had begun back then. as well as the elect would have inherited the kingdom at that point. and with the judging comes the eternal life I do not see anyone who lives forever. now if heaven is someplace else they may be their I am fine with that also.

The whole thing does not sit well with me that the trib has come and gone and Jesus rule begun. because of what I read
That is my own problem not "wt" thinking.
I never gave in when I was a kid until I was convinced and I do not plan to start now.
So if you don't mind I will keep questioning your interpretations based on historical documents. Unless of course you just grow tired of it which is fine as well.

if you can stop thinking about my mind set and just think about the issue at hand. thank you..

and for that matter if Jesus did reurn immediatley as the scripts say why are we reading the bible and not GOD's truths without distortion and error? why would he not have an addendum to scripture to add how the events were fullfilled?

Totaldismay,

Are you looking at the earthquakes too?

Here is an interesting link:

http://www.earth.webecs.co.uk/index.htm


DATES FROM & TO PERIOD (Mag. > 6.99)
------------------- ----------- ------------------------------
1863 to 1900 incl 38 yrs --- 12
1901 to 1938 incl 38 yrs --- 53
1939 to 1976 incl 38 yrs --- 71
1977 to 2014 incl 38 yrs --- 151 (to April. 2010) predict >190



Just in the last week there have been 4 earthquakes > 6.99

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/r...es_big.php



In Christ

abe

Hi Totaldismay

OK ... I apologize if I offended you. I didn't mean to imply you were "stuck" with WT thinking ... it's just when people use WT language, like "modern day", I think it's important to at least look at the scriptures to see if the belief is justified. Remember, the WTS see many "modern day" parallels with themselves in the scriptures.

I think there's lots to look for ... I just don't believe it's in Mathew 24.

Jesus himself set the time frame within which all the events would occur:

"Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur." (Mathew 24:34)

That doesn't give us much room for maneuver, although we've seen many people twist Jesus' statement here. The generation is the generation to which he preached.

The events Jesus talked about in Mathew 24 occurred over a period of 40 years, from 33AD in which the preaching began, along with the persecution, until 73AD.

I agree, they were gathered at one point in time. That's what Jesus implies.

I don't agree with this ... but then, I make a distinction between the parables in Mathew 25:1-30, and the final one in verses 31-46.

I think the parable of the virgins, and the parable of the talents, are not referring to the general Judgment ... Jesus is talking specifically about HIS followers.

However, the third parable is about when Jesus sits down on his glorious throne and judges the nations ... I don't believe this has happened yet (and seems to parallel Revelation 20:11-15.

Remember, when on earth, Jesus himself had only limited knowledge of the future ... which was only revealed when he went to heaven and was found worthy to unseal the 7 seals, as pictured in Revelation.

I believe the "firstfruits" were ALL Jewish. Jesus was Jewish, his 12 apostles were Jewish, and Paul was Jewish. The 144,000 in Revelation are described as "sealed out of every tribe of the sons of Israel", and then we are given a roll call of specifically which tribes.

So I still contend that Jesus' description of the "chosen ones" was primarily referring to the followers of his who were Jews.

Well, no more 1st century Jewish Christians.

As I said, I don't believe the parable of the nations gathered before Jesus has happened yet. Ironically, I could be wrong ... many FULL Preterists believe this has already happened, but I don't.

OK, fair enough. I don't believe Jesus has yet sat down on his judgment throne. That's what Judgment Day is for ... which is still future ... I think we both agree with that.

I don't mind at all. I sincerely wish EVERYONE was like you and not simply "give in" or stubbornly ignore something, but genuinely ask questions and desire to gain understanding, whether you agree with something or not.

OK ... but keep in mind that the one IS connected to the other.

For example, have you ever tried reasoning with a Witness? Guess what ... their mind set will trump accurate beliefs every time ... until a point where they are freely willing to explore a subject open-mindedly.

I didn't mean to imply you were like that ... I'm just saying that mindset IS connected to the issues at hand.

I don't know ... there are lots of questions as to why God did this rather than that, but that would be second guessing God.

My only guess is... if everything had been spelled out, we'd all consider the Bible so boring we wouldn't be talking about it and debating it here :D

That's one theory, at any rate!

thank you for the reply,

I need to soak up what you have written. so I will reply later to it.

But I have another thing that amkes the chosing of the elct and the timing seem impossible to have been in 70ad.

they all had to be caught up at the same time I think. I think is was after the two witnesses were killed and lay in the street.
I may have a faulty memory. but if this were the case who were the two witnesses that would seem to obvious if it is already happened they should have laid in the street and came back to life.
unless my memory is wrong.

edited, Abe I am trying to keep up with all things, I know we are in the middle of a significant event here but I am not sure what one.

I used to think I was just nuts. But since we have been together since 04/05 time frame so many things have happened in a short while that forces me to conclude that I am not nuts.

Hey brother, I am ok with whatever I am just pointing out that you yourself no matter how objective are “stuck” and maybe moreso then I as I was not an reader in my youth of the wt literature to much. It is not that I am stuck with anyone way of thinking. Haven’t you noticed I am pretty much all over the place where beliefs are concerned.
See this comment of yours shows you indeed have a trigger. “modern day”

Intp said
“OK ... I apologize if I offended you. I didn't mean to imply you were "stuck" with WT thinking ... it's just when people use WT language, like "modern day”


I may or may not have the same triggers “I will call them memory que’s” for lack of a better word. It is part of the “programing”

But someone will have to pinpoint them when I get stuck in a loop of logic.

So no apology needed.
I just want to add to my understanding and I am synical about mans written history as well. Who benefits most if “history” is written to send us off the path?
I learned at a young age history is written by the victor.

So if that be the case putting a spin on things is easy when you have no competition.
So unless the historians are HS inspired I do not really trust them.

With that said. I think that we are lead along the way we should walk and apparently for me the fall of jeruselem doesn’t fully fit what jesus was saying. I agree it does in part.

I thank you for being patient with me. I have a mind like a steel trap nothing in and nothing out.. it has kept me freee from the influence of others but it has brought me up in the school of hard knocks. I am not sure which is better.



Ok I will try my best to reply thouroly.

Intp said:

I think there's lots to look for ... I just don't believe it's in Mathew 24.


I think that Jesus saw things vaguely at this point. Why? Because he hadn’t risen yet. So ithink it puts him in the same shoes we are in. we may know something but we may not understand it. If that makes any sense.

I think revelation is when he came to understand it.

Ok and the time frame you stated.
I do not disagree that we have from his death till the fall of jeruselem for some of it.
The apostlesd asked when the buildings they were amazed with would be torn down as per Jesus prophecy.
He tells them that the famines and earth quakes would happen and that they would be killed first. False christs rise,
When was the last apostle killed? I believe it was after the fall of jeruselem? Also historically when did false prophets arise? And when did the love of people grow cold?
I personally see that to be in the “dark ages” wasn’t nostradamus from that time frame? Didn’t Muhammad rise at this time also? Was not lawlessness increased due to the fall of civilization?

Are you beginning to see why I cannot accept that it happen in 40 years. The one that endures to the end will be saved. From what? The gospel was to be preached in all of the world before the “end”

Ok so this was his first speech from both matt 24 and mark 13h

So what I got is that they would all be killed, as part of the beginning of the pains, while the gospel spread. Then the great tribulation,
But that happens after the “sun/moon stars are darkend.
We know them to be the rightfull heirs of Abraham yes? When were they darkend?
Seems to me like for almost two thousand years they have been darkend.
They are some of the smartest people on the planet from the little I have seen.
So to me the time frame comes after their period of darkness from what I have read.
That leads me to conclude that since 1948 the great tribulation was yet to come.

Do you see now why to me it cannot be jeruselem. It had to be those whom Christ spoke of abrahams heirs. That were darkend so it was all who accepted Jesus not God’s chosen race the jews. It is the heart that makes one a true heir.
Besides the tribulation was to be a one time deal and not on jeruselem it was to be for all the world. What happened to jeruselem has happened a thound time in the past. They got beat by the world power of the time in what amounted to a no contest fight..
And how was the entire world in tribulation? If it was to be such a great event and once then Jesus lied.

WE have had two world wars since and much more destruction and killing and we have the power to kill everyone now. And the worst plagues and famines occurred since then, as well as the Jews being a target for genocide?

So the Jews got hit twice on the mass tribulation scale?

Are you getting where I am coming from?

This really makes a hugh difference as to if the tribulation has come or not?

in fact iwould say that it is a "ONE time event" based on scripture so I am sure it will be written in history for all nations like the flood.

Hi TD

Yes. Revelation 11:7.

"And when they have finished their witnessing, the wild beast that ascends out of the abyss will make war with them and conquer them and kill them. And their corpses will be on the broad way of the great city which is in a spiritual sense called Sod´om and Egypt, where their Lord was also impaled."
http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/index.htm

Your memory isn't wrong, you're getting the order right.

I recommend reading the whole of Revelation chapter 11 again, and note the rich Jewish symbology - the Temple, the courtyard, the holy city, the "two witnesses" (originally from Zechariah), the 1,260 days (from Daniel), the 2 olive trees and 2 lampstands (from Zechariah), the fire from their mouths (Jeremiah), shut up heaven (Elijah), waters into blood and plagues (Moses), spiritual Sodom and Egypt (Isaiah), a tenth of the city falling (Isaiah, a "tithe" or holy "stump"), 7000 persons (Elijah).

This passage is rich in Jewish symbology because I believe it represents the culmination and climax of the Jewish system of things - pictured first of all by the Temple, and then by the two prophets acting like the various OT prophets at the worst times in Jewish history, such as Elijah under the reign of Ahab and Jezebel (when he had to hide the prophets from Jezebel), Moses under the Pharaoh who had the Jewish firstborn killed, Daniel who foretold a period of 1,260 until the dashing of the holy people, and Isaiah prophecying the Jewish exile to Babylon, with only a "stump" remaining.

To me, the "two witnesses" represent the two great congregations that would survive the end of the Jewish system ... the Jewish Christians, and the Gentile Christians. (Those were the ones who were able to stand, earlier on in chapter 7.)

They cannot represent individuals because the account tells us they are "two lampstands" ... and Jesus earlier interpreted lampstands to us: "the seven lampstands mean seven congregations." (Rev 1:20)

So to put Revelation 11 in CONTEXT, here is what I think:

Revelation 6 represents everything leading up to the fall of Jerusalem (and is comparable to Jesus' own prophecy in the first half of Mathew 24)... between 33AD and 66AD.

Revelation 7 represents the pause between the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem, and then withdrawing (66AD). It was, as it were, a holding back of the four winds, in order for 144,000 Jewish Christians to be sealed, and a "great crowd" of Gentile Christians to be found present before God's throne.

Revelation 8 and 9 represents the "great tribulation" that the Jews and the rest of the world faced, between 66AD and 70AD. Within Jerusalem, eventually 1.1 million would lose their lives, and elsewhere, Jews and Gentiles slaughtered each other, and the Roman empire fragmented and nearly collapsed in 68AD, with civil war in Rome after the death of Nero. During this period the Idumeans came and ravaged the city, and then finally the Romans.

Revelation 10 represents the pause of the "great tribulation" upon Jerusalem, Titus allowing survivors to surrender to the Romans (70AD), using Josephus (who would later write his account of the Jewish war) as his spokesmen.

Revelation 11 represents the continuation of the "great tribulation", with Titus surrounding Jerusalem with fortifications, and then witnessing the destruction of the Temple (70AD). Jews continued their war of Rome for about 3 1/2 until Masada was captured (73AD), after which Vespasian and Titus held a magnificent pageant in Rome to celebrate their victory over Jerusalem, where the items of the Temple were paraded through the streets, and everyone was happy and celebrated.

The Revelation account symbolizes this as the death of the "two witnesses" (God's great congregations of Jewish and Gentile Christians) and an apparent victory for the Gentiles, but the "two witnesses" are miraculously resurrected and caught away to heaven.

I think this passage is a symbolic drama (to coin a WTS phrase) to show Christians that it is THEY who have really gained the victory here. It may also represent a literal resurrection (in 73AD) of those Christians who had lost their lives during this terrible period for Jews and Christians.

I'll reply to your second post when I get the chance.

Hi Totaldismay

Fair comment. As they say, history is written by the victors. :D

Concerning the Jewish historian Josephus, I do actually think he was given a little help from the holy spirit. He just kept happening to be in the right place at the right time, and he also claimed to have had a dream from God in which he learned that both Vespasian AND Titus would become emperors, at a time when Vespasian was merely a general, and the idea of him becoming emperor would have been unthinkable. (There was a bloodline, and Nero was in the bloodline of Julius Caesar).

Skeptics think Josephus just made a smart or shrewd guess to save his own skin when he was captured by Vespasian, but I think he was telling the truth - and besides, his account of the Jewish war is hardly flattering to his own people, nor particularly pandering to the Romans. I think he told it how it was. He was actually there, unlike most historians who write several decades or even hundreds of years after the events they write about!

I agree. :thumbsup: ... which is why, in my opinion, Revelation is a lot more rich in detail about the "great tribulation".

Yes, the last apostle to die seems to have been John, and according to some sources he died in the reign of ... I think it was Nerva or Trajan, around the beginning of the 2nd century.

Maybe it was Jesus' specific intention to keep John alive, in order to preserve some continuity between the pre-fall of Jerusalem church, and the post-fall.

If the same author wrote Revelation and the letters of John, then I'd suggest they seem to have been written at different ages ... which is why I think Revelation was written prior to 70AD (when John would be middle aged), compared to the letters, when John seems to be aged ... very different from the "I, John" dynamic writing in Revelation.

False prophets arose within Jerusalem ... Josephus reports this as happening before 70AD, and given that the people were slaughtering each other, I'd say their love had grown pretty cold by then.

True, but here is where I make the distinction.

In Mathew 24, Jesus was focusing primarily on Jerusalem and the troubles that land would face (with the rest of the world facing trouble, too).

Revelation starts off at Jerusalem, but eventually transitions (from Rev 12) onwards to the rest of the world ... and the rise of the two wild beasts cover the period you suggest.

BUT ... and this is the crucial thing ... the wild beast was already alive and active, by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD ... because it represented the Roman empire (the same ten-horned kingdom in Daniel), having just revived from its near death-stroke in 68-69AD ... Google the "year of the four emperors".

Most of Revelation is NOT new symbology, but is really drawing on symbology already established in the Old Testament. The "ten horned" kingdom is recognized by most Bible commentators as representing the Roman kingdom ... and by the time Revelation was written, Rome ruled the world and had absorbed the traits of Babylon, Greece and Medo-Persia.

That's why Revelation was actually easier to understand for a 1st century Christian. They GOT the references.

"And this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come." (Mathew 24:14)

And that happened. First, how far did "all the inhabited earth" reach?

Luke answers: "Now in those days a decree went forth from Caesar Augustus for all the inhabited earth to be registered." (Luke 2:1)

By 70AD, the entire realm of Caesar Augustus had received the good news.

Second, this is confirmed by Paul:

"... continue in the faith, established on the foundation and steadfast and not being shifted away from the hope of that good news which YOU heard, and which was preached in all creation that is under heaven." (Colossians 1:23)

The problem I have here is you equate sun and moon with the rightful heirs of Abraham, which I don't.

I know we discussed Jacob's dream earlier, but that's not the only context of sun and moon in the Bible.

I already showed that, upon the fall of ancient Babylon, God said he darkened sun and moon:

"For the very stars of the heavens and their constellations of Kesil will not flash forth their light; the sun will actually grow dark at its going forth, and the moon itself will not cause its light to shine." (Isaiah 13:10)

This is why we need to be careful with symbols. In Jacob's dream, the sun and moon did not darken, they BOWED to Jacob.

In Isaiah's description, the sun and moon DARKEN ... which is a much closer match to Jesus' words. What happened in Isaiah 13? The CITY of Babylon was captured by the Medes, as confirmed by Isaiah.

So in Jesus' words, I would suggest to you that the sun and moon darkening represent the fall of a city, just as it did in Isaiah 13. Which city do you think is falling, in Mathew 24?

I would really encourage you to read Josephus. NEVER before had the Jews experienced the tribulation they experienced during 66-73AD.

Even with the capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, I don't think the Jews suffered anywhere near as much as in the period 66-73.

I certainly get where you're coming from, and agree it's a ONE time event ... just as Jesus said.

Two things...

First of all, Jesus doesn't actually say that it would be a great tribulation on the whole world. He says...

"Keep praying that your flight may not occur in wintertime, nor on the sabbath day; for then there will be great tribulation such as has not occurred since the world’s beginning until now, no, nor will occur again."

"Since the world's beginning" is giving a time frame, not the SCOPE of the tribulation.

Plus, if the whole world was to experience this, what would be the point of fleeing in the first place?

Second, both gospel accounts make it plain WHO was to flee: "... then let those in Judea begin fleeing to the mountains." This was a Jewish thing, which is why they needed to pray it wasn't wintertime nor the sabbath, when their flight might be hindered by other Jews.

Luke's parallel account confirms this and adds more details: "Furthermore, when YOU see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her has drawn near. Then let those in Judea begin fleeing to the mountains, and let those in the midst of her withdraw, and let those in the country places not enter into her." (Luke 21:20-21)

Jesus' words are simple, and clear. If you're in Judea, get out. If you live in the country, STAY out. Signal? "When YOU see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies."

This is such a plain prophecy, it amazes me what Christians have done with it, to make it say something OTHER than what Jesus plainly says!

He continues: "For there will be great necessity upon the land and wrath on this people; and they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations..."

This explains the principle focus of the "great tribulation" ... it was the LAND and PEOPLE of the Jews. Being led captive into "all the nations" was their ultimate humiliation.

So World Wars I and II are irrelevant from the point of view of Jesus' prophecy here. It was NOT about numbers of deaths, but primarily about the land and people of the Jews.

In their land, they had never before faced such a focused, intense calamity, and never again would. (If you don't believe this, read Josephus' account).

Of course, this begs the important question ... what about the Holocaust? Well, if we say 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust, that represented I think approximately 1/3rd of the world's Jews at the time.

As a race, they weren't even CLOSE to being wiped out... it was European Jews who were in danger... while in 66-73AD, the entire race could well have been wiped out, had the Romans chosen to do so. Jews lived mainly in Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch and Babylon.

According to Josephus, most the Jews in Alexandria were slaughtered in one DAY and HOUR... I think the Jews in Antioch suffered a similar fate although they put up more of a fight ... the Jews in Babylonia fled because of a plague and a political problem there ... and the Jews in Jerusalem died in the great tribulation.

The ENTIRE RACE of Jews were close to extinction in the 7 years of 66-73AD.

But besides, I don't think it's about numbers. Jesus' prophecy was primarily about the LAND and PEOPLE of the Jews ... and the Holocaust did not take place in the LAND of Judea, which was what Jesus was referencing. (i.e. "there will be great necessity upon the land...", Luke 21:22)

Hey Interpretum!! :clap:


Hows it going mate? :thumbsup:

I just did as you suggested, bro -- and I must say - it is extremely compelling - so much so, that I am quite amazed Matthew 24 can be read any other way.


Talk about a paradigm shift!! (of course, my wife has believed Jesus is talking about Jerusalem here for some time.....im just a little slow! ;))


Cheers mate! :friends::friends::friends:

Thanks Again INTP!!

As I have stated I am perfectly ok with many things being done back in the first century. as I have agreed with you in the past I too am a partial preterist.

BUt I still mentally have to make thing fit.

So your comment
"Yes, the gathering of the "elect" took place in the 1st century ... but that doesn't mean a harvest couldn't continue. In any harvest, you always have "firstfruits". All those gathered to Jesus when he came against Jerusalem in the 1st century were "firstfruits", and I believe are even described as such in Revelation 14."

Doesn't make sense because how long is the harvest? and of which field ?

IF the elect were indeed gathered from jew/gentile christians then the harvest would also have been from the Isrealite/gentile field so to speak of that time no spanning thousands of years.

do you understand where I am coming from ?

and since we are in a time frame of upheaval again with the "end of the world " being on the minds of many. from 2012 to armagedon you do not have to have the wt thinking to be led to wrong conclusions based on the face the blind have be in the lead for a long long time.
and from all four corners of the earth.

and I will go over what you wrote and reply back. I will try to make it thru josephus but I think I may have ADD :whistle:
small chunks is better for me.

Interpretum,

This is not a parallel account.

Luke's account explains that Jerusalem (the city) would be surrounded by armies.


Matthews account explains that the temple would be profaned by a disgusting thing. Also to use discernment. Daniel further explains that the disgusting thing is a transgression.

These are completely different accounts.

Why would discernment be required to see a Roman Army surrounding Jerusalem?

How can a temple that Jesus Christ had already proclaimed was abandoned be profaned by anything?

Jesus Christs death and resurrection inaugurated the way of entry into the heavenly (Christian) temple way before 70ad replacing any value the old temple had. After 3 days he raised the Christian temple up.

So which temple was Matthew referring to?

The abandoned, valueless stone and mortar Jewish Temple?

or

The newly raised up Christian Temple which Jesus Christ inaugurated with his own blood?

Yep, to figure that out a person is going to need some discernment while reading the things that Daniel the Prophet wrote about.

Whereas in Luke's account absolutely no discernment is required. Its a no brainer!



In Christ

abe

Interpretum,

Jesus Christ did not say it was the generation to which he was then preaching.

Jesus Christ said it was the generation who would see all those signs.

Just making certain no one twists the scriptures.


In Christ

abe

Morning abe! I have to agree with you on this.
The "this" in Mathew refers to the generation that will "see" all these things. I never realized that the account in Luke is not a parallel account. :thumbup: