The "Already/Not Yet" Interpretation of Eschatology

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The kingdom of God is both now and future.

Excellent point Henry! This was the position I held before being dragged into an indepth study of eschatology by folks on this forum. I called it the "Already/Not Yet" position which I learned from reading Ladd's "The Presence of the Future" and Hoekema's "The Bible and the Future." Have any of you read those books?

The more I studied the more I became convinced that the "kingdom of God" is a symbol representing the Church, the Body of Christ. There are many verses that support this position. For example, Hebrews 12:22 identifies the Church as "mount Zion," "the city of the living God," and "the heavenly Jerusalem."

This is the most consistent interpretation that I have seen. The problem with the Futurist interpretation is that it has no consistent "Big Picture" at all. The Futurist doctrines are based upon a fundamentally faulty foundation that denies the main and plain things of the Bible and replaces them with unfounded fantasies and speculations. This becomes extremely obvious the moment anyone challenges the Futurist assertions. Their most egregious error is that they must assert that the prophecies of the Olivet Discourse are a mix of past and future fulfillment, but there no logically consistent way to chop up those passages into past and future.

There are, of course, problematic passages for any eschatological position. None are perfect. That's why I've concluded that Biblical eschatology is logically incoherent. This explains why nobody can agree after 2000 years of study. But if it is assumed that the Bible is logically coherent, then there is no possibility other than Preterism as far as I can tell. No Futurist eschatological system has a tenth of the Biblical support we see for Preterism.

[Twospirits]

Ram wrote,

There are, of course, problematic passages for any eschatological position. None are perfect. That's why I've concluded that Biblical eschatology is logically incoherent. This explains why nobody can agree after 2000 years of study. But if it is assumed that the Bible is logically coherent, then there is no possibility other than Preterism as far as I can tell. No Futurist eschatological system has a tenth of the Biblical support we see for Preterism.

There is a consistent logical (biblical) way seen in the OD and confirmed by the NT scriptures. It is what I have in the past discussed with you on this forum what I call the gospel/salvation age given in Mt. 28: 19-20; Acts 2:17-21, but you have rejected it, which of course is your choice.

I have since made a commentary on it and can be seen below (attachment file)for anyone who's interested in reading it. It will be seen that allowing for the gospel era (time-gap) in the Discourse, all the prophetic scriptures of the end time then fall consistently into place.

Twospirits

[Richard Amiel McGough]

There is a consistent logical (biblical) way seen in the OD and confirmed by the NT scriptures. It is what I have in the past discussed with you on this forum what I call the gospel/salvation age given in Mt. 28: 19-20; Acts 2:17-21, but you have rejected it, which of course is your choice.

I rejected your interpretation because contrary to your assertion, it was neither logical nor biblical so it was not a "choice" I made but rather a conclusion I was forced to take based on logic and facts.

There are many problems with your interpretation, the most prominent being your attempt to divide the Olivet Discourse into past and future fulfillments. The discourse simply will not allow for that. It is impossible to deny the unity of the three synoptic versions, as I have shown in my article The Synoptic Apocalypse. We discussed this at length in the thread The "ye" principle, this generation, & Mt. 24, Mark 13, Luke 21. Here is what I wrote in post #74:

OK, so now we are back to the original problem: You want to assert that Matthew and Mark record one event while Luke records another. But as I said, this is impossible because the three accounts are inextricably tangled together. Matthew and Mark agree in one part, Mark and Luke agree in another, and all three agree in a third:

• Matt 24:3 Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
• Mark 13:4 Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?
• Luke 21:7 Master, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when these things shall come to pass?

This profound "entanglement" is found throughout all three records of the Olivet Discourse. There is no logically consistently way to argue that Matthew and Mark record one event while Luke records another, especially since all three follow the same basic pattern from beginning to end as seen in this list of parallels:

• SYNOPTIC Christ predicts Destruction of the First Century Temple
• SYNOPTIC The Disciples ask, When will these things be?
• SYNOPTIC Jesus answered, Take heed that no man deceive you!
• SYNOPTIC Wars and Rumours of Wars ~ The Six Seals of Revelation
• SYNOPTIC Persecution for Jesus' Name
• SYNOPTIC The Days of Vengeance
• LUKE ONLY Christ Predicts the Dispora
• MATT/MARK The Great Tribulation
• MATT/MARK False Christs
• MATT ONLY As Lightning shineth from East to West
• SYNOPTIC The Coming of the Son of Man
• SYNOPTIC The Answer to the Question of "When?" ~ This Generation!

All three synoptic Gospels begin with the same set of six parallel passages with only minor variations, and end with the same pair of parallel passages. Thus, all but four subsections are found in each synoptic Gospel, and the parallel passages appear in the same order in all three synoptic Gospels. It seems impossible to assert that such detailed and consistent parallels could be coherently separated into two distinct events.

So now we see two issues you need to overcome: 1) the total entanglement of all three records, and 2) the strong agreement in the overall pattern of all three records. This seems to me an impossible task.

You then explained how you divide up the synoptic accounts of the Olivet Discourse into past and future:

The 1st century fulfillment events are given beginning in Mt. 24:4-14a; Mark 13:5-13b; Luke 21:8-24a.

The events that concern Christ's coming and end of the age are the events beginning from Mt. 24:14b F; Mark 13:13b F and Luke 21:24 b F.

I then explained that this was impossible because the three accounts have the same elements in the beginning, middle, and end:

OK - let's take a look at the parallel passages relating to the point that you think begins the future fulfillment:

MATTHEW 24:15-20 [FUTURE]
When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand) 16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: 17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: 18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. 19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

MARK 13:14-18 [FUTURE]
But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains: 15 And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of his house: 16 And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to take up his garment. 17 But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 18 And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter.

Now let's compare those with the parallel part from Luke that you say is past:

LUKE 21:20-23 [PAST]
And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.

See that? Exactly the same words are found in exactly the same order in all three accounts:

And when ye shall see ... desolation ... Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains ... But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days!

Given the extreme similarity between these three passages, how is it that you could think that two are future and one is past? Is that not entirely arbitrary and inconsistent?

You then CHANGED THE SUBJECT and NEVER RESPONDED to these facts that contradict your interpretation.

I think it would be great if you would like to pick up the conversation and respond to the facts I have presented.

All the best,

Richard

[Twospirits]

Ram wrote,

Originally Posted by RAM
OK - let's take a look at the parallel passages relating to the point that you think begins the future fulfillment:

MATTHEW 24:15-20 [FUTURE]
When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand) 16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: 17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: 18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. 19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

MARK 13:14-18 [FUTURE]
But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains: 15 And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of his house: 16 And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to take up his garment. 17 But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 18 And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter.

Now let's compare those with the parallel part from Luke that you say is past:

LUKE 21:20-23 [PAST]
And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.

See that? Exactly the same words are found in exactly the same order in all three accounts:

And when ye shall see ... desolation ... Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains ... But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days!

Given the extreme similarity between these three passages, how is it that you could think that two are future and one is past? Is that not entirely arbitrary and inconsistent?

You then CHANGED THE SUBJECT and NEVER RESPONDED to these facts that contradict your interpretation.

I think it would be great if you would like to pick up the conversation and respond to the facts I have presented.

I never responded because if you look to the thread, you'll see it got buried in the on-going discussion on the issue of the 'gospel/salvation age' and 'end of the age' between us and other posters. But so it won't be said that I didn't respond, I will respond below to the points you brought up. As to 'picking up the conversation,' what can be said that I haven't said in the link (Discourse 1 pdf) I gave for you and anyone who wishes to read it? It makes clear where I stand on the eschatological views of scripture.

As to your points:

The city of Jerusalem lay in the district of Judea, and this is why Christ mentions Judea.
The warnings to flee, though similar, do not in themselves prove that they speak of the same event and time-frame. Jerusalem was compassed with armies on many occasions after the discourse was delivered including 70 AD, 132, 639, 1099, 1187, etc. where people fled.

The destruction of Jerusalem involves 'vengeance' and severe judgment upon the Jews. In contrast, the coming of Christ at the end of the age will bring deliverance to those saints. Luke does not say that this 'great distress' will be the greatest time of distress the world has ever known, but the tribulation which is associated with the Lord’s coming and the end of the age is so described. Mt.24:21-22, 'For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.'

The phrase 'no life' or 'no flesh' (Mt. 24:22) indicates all humanity and not a certain group (Mt. 25:31-32). It appears that Satan’s effort to destroy God's people would result in the total annihilation of all humanity, were it not for Christ’s intervention at the Second Advent. This fact provides us with further insight into the purposes of Christ’s return. The term 'the elect" is used three times by Jesus in the Olivet discourse (Matthew 14:22, 24, 31; also in Mark 13:20, 22, 27), all three refer to the same entity. The term 'the elect' refers to both Jew and Gentile saints who believe in our Lord Jesus Christ. (Romans 8:33; Colossians 3:12; 2 Timothy 2:10; Titus 1:1).

Jesus speaks of a event/sign connected with the holy place- its desecration by an abomination prophesied by Daniel. What 'holy place' is being spoken of here by Jesus? Was the 'holy place' that was to be desecrated the same 'Temple' as the one predicted to be destroyed in Luke? There are a number of contrasts within this text that indicate that Jesus was talking about two different things.

The text Jesus cited concerning the Temple's desecration in Daniel 9:27 predicts that the one who desecrates this Temple will himself be destroyed. By contrast, those who destroyed the Temple in A.D.70, the Romans were not destroyed but returned to Rome in triumph carrying vessels from the destroyed Temple.

The prophecy in Dan. 9:27 and 12:11-12 is said to be about Daniel's people. Was Daniel an apostate or a saint? He was a saint. The vision told to Daniel is about God's holy people (not apostates) in whom we were grafted in, in which we then become included in the vision (Dan. 10:14). The NC was brought in through Christ after the 69 weeks (Dan. 9:26), where 40 years later the city and sanctuary would be destroyed as we read there. This ends the 'latter days' for apostate Israel. The 'time of the end' comes in a future time for God's holy people (See Dan. 12:1,4,7). The fulfillment of the vision comes at the time of the end (12:9) when the 'power of the holy people (not apostate Jews) have been accomplished' (12:7).

In Daniel's 'the holy place,' we see it is to "anoint," (Dan. 9:24) not destroy the sanctuary as seen in Dan. 9:26, showing again that the 70 sevens cannot have been fulfilled in 70 A.D., because the Jerusalem sanctuary was destroyed by the Romans; 'this' sanctuary in Dan. 9:24 is to be "anointed."

The literal translation in Dan. 9:24 is the Holy of holies. This expression appears forty-six times in the Old Testament, and it is never used of the Messiah (to anoint), it is never used of a "person." The expression always refers to the temple, the Holy of holies, or furniture or articles used in temple worship. The Holy of holies is mentioned in Ezek. 41:4 and Ezek. 43:12, in Ezekiel's vision of the temple measuring.

Twospirits

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I never responded because if you look to the thread, you'll see it got buried in the on-going discussion on the issue of the 'gospel/salvation age' and 'end of the age' between us and other posters. But so it won't be said that I didn't respond, I will respond below to the points you brought up. As to 'picking up the conversation,' what can be said that I haven't said in the link (Discourse 1 pdf) I gave for you and anyone who wishes to read it? It makes clear where I stand on the eschatological views of scripture.

Understood. I'm glad you are taking time to answer now.

The city of Jerusalem lay in the district of Judea, and this is why Christ mentions Judea.
The warnings to flee, though similar, do not in themselves prove that they speak of the same event and time-frame. Jerusalem was compassed with armies on many occasions after the discourse was delivered including 70 AD, 132, 639, 1099, 1187, etc. where people fled.

It is obvious that Christ was talking about 70 AD because the entire discourse in all three versions began with his prediction of the destruction of the Temple which happened in 70 AD.

You are not dealing with the facts I have presented. Exactly the same words are found in exactly the same order in all three accounts:

And when ye shall see ... desolation ... Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains ... But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days!

You say that these same words refer to a future event in Matthew and Mark, and a past event in Luke. If you were correct, it would mean that the Bible is deliberately deceptive and utterly incoherent and indeceipherable. Anyone reading three parallel accounts that use the same words would understand that they are speaking of the same events.

There is no way to split up the unified synoptic discourse without doing great violence to Scripure and ripping it into shreds. If the three versions are not unified, the entire Bible is reduced to meaningless gibberish. Nothing could be confirmed with any certainty at all.

The destruction of Jerusalem involves 'vengeance' and severe judgment upon the Jews. In contrast, the coming of Christ at the end of the age will bring deliverance to those saints. Luke does not say that this 'great distress' will be the greatest time of distress the world has ever known, but the tribulation which is associated with the Lord’s coming and the end of the age is so described. Mt.24:21-22, 'For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.'

The saints (Christians) in Jerusalem were delivered from the apostate rule of the Jews who were imprisoning, torturing, and killing them, exactly as stated in the Bible.

Mark 13:9 But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.

This cannot be future because there will never again be a time when the Jews are dragging Christians into synagogues to be beaten.

Josephus had no problem saying that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD was the "greatest time of distress the world has ever known." Of course, everyone understands that was hyperbole.

The phrase 'no life' or 'no flesh' (Mt. 24:22) indicates all humanity and not a certain group (Mt. 25:31-32). It appears that Satan’s effort to destroy God's people would result in the total annihilation of all humanity, were it not for Christ’s intervention at the Second Advent. This fact provides us with further insight into the purposes of Christ’s return. The term 'the elect" is used three times by Jesus in the Olivet discourse (Matthew 14:22, 24, 31; also in Mark 13:20, 22, 27), all three refer to the same entity. The term 'the elect' refers to both Jew and Gentile saints who believe in our Lord Jesus Christ. (Romans 8:33; Colossians 3:12; 2 Timothy 2:10; Titus 1:1).

Your assertion does not follow. The phrase "no flesh" obviously refers to those living in Judea. That is established by context.

There is nothing in the Olivet Discourse that talks about the entire planet earth. It speaks of first century Christians in Judea fleeing the judgment that was to come down on Jerusalem.

There is nothing in the Olivet Discourse that speaks of any "second coming." On the contrary, it speaks only of the "coming" of the son of man which the disciples connected with the destruction of the Temple because they understood the connection.

Jesus speaks of a event/sign connected with the holy place- its desecration by an abomination prophesied by Daniel. What 'holy place' is being spoken of here by Jesus? Was the 'holy place' that was to be desecrated the same 'Temple' as the one predicted to be destroyed in Luke? There are a number of contrasts within this text that indicate that Jesus was talking about two different things.

There is nothing that indicates he was talking about two different things. The unity of the three versions totally excludes any such speculation.

You have not touched the TWO TON ELEPHANT that is sitting in the middle of this discussion. The unity of the three versions is incontrovertible. If you deny it, you deny the coherence of Scripture. If you were correct, nothing in the Bible could be known with any certainty.

The text Jesus cited concerning the Temple's desecration in Daniel 9:27 predicts that the one who desecrates this Temple will himself be destroyed. By contrast, those who destroyed the Temple in A.D.70, the Romans were not destroyed but returned to Rome in triumph carrying vessels from the destroyed Temple.

So the Bible is wrong on this point, or needs to be reinterpreted. In no case would this point justify shredding the text to make room for your Futurist eschatology. Resolution of this point under the Preterist interpretation wouldn't require a tenth of the hermeneutical gymnastics required to support your eschatology. That's the difference between the two positions. Preterism requires a lot less speculation and invention.

The prophecy in Dan. 9:27 and 12:11-12 is said to be about Daniel's people. Was Daniel an apostate or a saint? He was a saint. The vision told to Daniel is about God's holy people (not apostates) in whom we were grafted in, in which we then become included in the vision (Dan. 10:14). The NC was brought in through Christ after the 69 weeks (Dan. 9:26), where 40 years later the city and sanctuary would be destroyed as we read there. This ends the 'latter days' for apostate Israel. The 'time of the end' comes in a future time for God's holy people (See Dan. 12:1,4,7). The fulfillment of the vision comes at the time of the end (12:9) when the 'power of the holy people (not apostate Jews) have been accomplished' (12:7).

That point is absurd. Daniel's use of the phrase "holy people" was understood by everyone to refer to the Jews whether apostate or not. Your use of this point is making you look desperate, especially since you have written nothing that contradicts my primary point of the UNITY of the Olivet Discourse.

In Daniel's 'the holy place,' we see it is to "anoint," (Dan. 9:24) not destroy the sanctuary as seen in Dan. 9:26, showing again that the 70 sevens cannot have been fulfilled in 70 A.D., because the Jerusalem sanctuary was destroyed by the Romans; 'this' sanctuary in Dan. 9:24 is to be "anointed."

The literal translation in Dan. 9:24 is the Holy of holies. This expression appears forty-six times in the Old Testament, and it is never used of the Messiah (to anoint), it is never used of a "person." The expression always refers to the temple, the Holy of holies, or furniture or articles used in temple worship. The Holy of holies is mentioned in Ezek. 41:4 and Ezek. 43:12, in Ezekiel's vision of the temple measuring.

Twospirits

So again, the Bible could be wrong on this point, or it needs to be reinterpreted. Take your pick. But you can't build your Futurist eschatology on such a shaky foundation. It simply will not stand because it contradicts the main and the plain things that any reader can see and understand. You have not touched any aspect of the argument I have presented. I take that as yet another confirmation that you cannot refute it.

Great chatting!

Richard

[Twospirits]

Ram wrote,

It is obvious that Christ was talking about 70 AD because the entire discourse in all three versions began with his prediction of the destruction of the Temple which happened in 70 AD.
You are not dealing with the facts I have presented. Exactly the same words are found in exactly the same order in all three accounts:

And when ye shall see ... desolation ... Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains ... But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days!

I did deal with what you presented. I said though the warnings are similar in all three accounts, they certainly also apply to events beyond 70 A.D. as in A.D. 132, 639, 1099, 1187, etc. as well. So this prophetic event certainly can occur post 70 A.D., that is more than once in history, so this event by itself does not stand. It can be a 1st century fulfillment as well as a future fulfillment for the prophecy not only concerns the temple but also 'the coming of Christ and the end of the age.'

You say that these same words refer to a future event in Matthew and Mark, and a past event in Luke. If you were correct, it would mean that the Bible is deliberately deceptive and utterly incoherent and indeceipherable. Anyone reading three parallel accounts that use the same words would understand that they are speaking of the same events.

There is no way to split up the unified synoptic discourse without doing great violence to Scripure and ripping it into shreds. If the three versions are not unified, the entire Bible is reduced to meaningless gibberish. Nothing could be confirmed with any certainty at all.

The language of prophecy is always given in a vialed manner but this is not deception but a war against good and evil, and God's way that his will be done. And as I said, the words are similar in the 3 accounts because they are events that would occur later in history beyond 70 A.D.
The many and clear contradictions in the Discourse shown in my commentary Discourse 1 pdf confirmed by scripture shows it to be a prophecy that spans the entire gospel/salvation age leading to the coming of Christ and the gathering (redemption) of the elect from the 4 winds of heaven and earth. That the Discourse has the dreaded 'time-gap' (gospel age) that many reject here and in Daniel 9, the final seven. But that's to be expected with prophecy, therefore the need for much study of every word.

The saints (Christians) in Jerusalem were delivered from the apostate rule of the Jews who were imprisoning, torturing, and killing them, exactly as stated in the Bible.
Mark 13:9 But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.
This cannot be future because there will never again be a time when the Jews are dragging Christians into synagogues to be beaten.

Yes, and I said that the 1st century fulfillment events are given beginning in Mt. 24:4-14a; Mark 13:5-13b; Luke 21:8-24a.

Your assertion does not follow. The phrase "no flesh" obviously refers to those living in Judea. That is established by context.

There is nothing in the Olivet Discourse that talks about the entire planet earth. It speaks of first century Christians in Judea fleeing the judgment that was to come down on Jerusalem.

There is nothing in the Olivet Discourse that speaks of any "second coming." On the contrary, it speaks only of the "coming" of the son of man which the disciples connected with the destruction of the Temple because they understood the connection.

Nothing?? The Discourse speaks of the 'elect' in Matthew 24:22 and Mark 13:20 the same passage that speaks of 'no flesh' being saved, but for the elect's sake, their survival, the days will be shortened. At Christ's coming it is this very 'elect' that Jesus sends his angels to gather 'from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven' (Mark 13:27; Mt. 24:31). The passage indicates a earthly gathering from the 4 directions of the whole inhabited earth, and not contained to the environs of Judea.

There is nothing that indicates he was talking about two different things. The unity of the three versions totally excludes any such speculation.

You have not touched the TWO TON ELEPHANT that is sitting in the middle of this discussion. The unity of the three versions is incontrovertible. If you deny it, you deny the coherence of Scripture. If you were correct, nothing in the Bible could be known with any certainty.

But the Discourse shows he IS talking about two different things, and it is not speculation. Mt. 24:15 and Mark 13:14 speaks of an abomination standing in the holy place, which Daniel makes clear speaks of the sanctuary. Whereas Luke 21:20 speaks of Jerusalem being compassed by armies. Huge difference here!

The Bible is telling us with certainty by these very contradictions, they are showing that the Discourse is not a unity but speaks of something else, something that we have been missing, something you reject, the dreaded time-gap.

So the Bible is wrong on this point, or needs to be reinterpreted. In no case would this point justify shredding the text to make room for your Futurist eschatology. Resolution of this point under the Preterist interpretation wouldn't require a tenth of the hermeneutical gymnastics required to support your eschatology. That's the difference between the two positions. Preterism requires a lot less speculation and invention.

No, the Bible is not wrong on this point, it is you that rejects the truth of the text that contradicts your belief system, ie. preterism.

That point is absurd. Daniel's use of the phrase "holy people" was understood by everyone to refer to the Jews whether apostate or not. Your use of this point is making you look desperate, especially since you have written nothing that contradicts my primary point of the UNITY of the Olivet Discourse.

It doesn't matter what was understood, what matters is the NT would have to be taken into account for the prophecy's fulfillment of Dan. 9:24-26 brought in Christ, and the NC in 30 A.D. and the fall of the temple in 70 A.D. The prophecy of Dan. 9:27 and Dan. 12:7,11,12 speak of God's 'holy people.' Since when does God call apostates and the ungodly 'holy people' in scripture? That comes from a wrong conclusion of interpreting scripture.

I have given my points concerning your view of the unity of the Discourse, whether you accept or reject it is up to you.

Originally Posted by Twospirits
In Daniel's 'the holy place,' we see it is to "anoint," (Dan. 9:24) not destroy the sanctuary as seen in Dan. 9:26, showing again that the 70 sevens cannot have been fulfilled in 70 A.D., because the Jerusalem sanctuary was destroyed by the Romans; 'this' sanctuary in Dan. 9:24 is to be "anointed."

The literal translation in Dan. 9:24 is the Holy of holies. This expression appears forty-six times in the Old Testament, and it is never used of the Messiah (to anoint), it is never used of a "person." The expression always refers to the temple, the Holy of holies, or furniture or articles used in temple worship. The Holy of holies is mentioned in Ezek. 41:4 and Ezek. 43:12, in Ezekiel's vision of the temple measuring.

Ram replied,

So again, the Bible could be wrong on this point, or it needs to be reinterpreted. Take your pick. But you can't build your Futurist eschatology on such a shaky foundation. It simply will not stand because it contradicts the main and the plain things that any reader can see and understand. You have not touched any aspect of the argument I have presented. I take that as yet another confirmation that you cannot refute it.

This is the second time you say this about things in the Discourse, will you say the same about this below? most probably so.

You say that Dan. 9:24-27 and Dan.12:7,11,12 'God's holy people' are speaking about the apostate Jews of 1st century Jerusalem. And you hold that Mt. 24:15 and Mark 13:14 the 'abomination of desolation' is to be the prophecy of Luke 21:20, the Roman armies encompassing Jerusalem. But this can't be for several reasons.

The Romans (the abomination) didn't stand in 'the holy place' (Mt. 24:15) the temple until the 'end' of the tribulation. Which would be to late for it to be a sign for the saints to flee Judea.

If the Roman armies (or the zealots) are the abomination that causes desolation then this contradicts Dan. 9:27 and Dan.12:7,11,12. For Dan. 12:11 says, 'And from the time (that) the daily (sacrifice) shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, (there shall be) a thousand two hundred and ninety days.'

This passage tells us that the daily in the temple is taken away 3 ½ years+ 'prior' to the time that the abomination that causes desolation is set up. For those who hold the preterist view that the events speak of armies surrounding Jerusalem (or the zealots in the temple) this means that the sacrifices would have to have ceased sometime in Jan.-Feb. of 66 A.D. to the time of the abomination being set up ie. the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem. Yet Josephus records that the sacrifices continued even after the Roman armies surrounded Jerusalem up to the final months of that siege. The very opposite of the preterist view.

CONTAINING THE INTERVAL OF NEAR SIX MONTHS.
FROM THE COMING OF TITUS TO BESIEGE JERUSALEM, TO THE GREAT EXTREMITY TO WHICH THE JEWS WERE REDUCED.

Bk. 5, chap 1:2,3

Each of these were followed by a great many of the zealots; these seized upon the inner court of the temple (1) and laid their arms upon the holy gates, and over the holy fronts of that court. And because they had plenty of provisions, they were of good courage, for there was a great abundance of what was consecrated to sacred uses, and they scrupled not the making use of them;-----


For notwithstanding these men were mad with all sorts of impiety, yet did they still admit those that desired to offer their sacrifices, although they took care to search the people of their own country beforehand, and both suspected and watched them; while they were not so much afraid of strangers, who, although they had gotten leave of them, how cruel soever they were, to come into that court, were yet often destroyed by this sedition; for those darts that were thrown by the engines came with that force, that they went over all the buildings, and reached as far as the altar, and the temple itself, and fell upon the priests, and those (2) that were about the sacred offices; insomuch that many persons who came thither with great zeal from the ends of the earth, to offer sacrifices at this celebrated place, which was esteemed holy by all mankind, fell down before their own sacrifices themselves, and sprinkled that altar which was venerable among all men, ----


So we see that at this time, 6 months or so prior to the fall of the temple and city they were still continuing with the Mosaic sacrificial system. Therefore it is impossible for the Romans or others, the Zealots, to be the fulfillment of Mt. 24:15f, Mark 13:14f, and Dan. 9:27; Dan.12:11-12.

But of course you will respond and say:

'But you can't build your Futurist eschatology on such a shaky foundation. It simply will not stand because it contradicts the main and the plain things that any reader can see and understand. You have not touched any aspect of the argument I have presented. I take that as yet another confirmation that you cannot refute it.'

God bless---Twospirits

[Richard Amiel McGough]

It is obvious that Christ was talking about 70 AD because the entire discourse in all three versions began with his prediction of the destruction of the Temple which happened in 70 AD.
You are not dealing with the facts I have presented. Exactly the same words are found in exactly the same order in all three accounts:

And when ye shall see ... desolation ... Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains ... But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days!

I did deal with what you presented. I said though the warnings are similar in all three accounts, they certainly also apply to events beyond 70 A.D. as in A.D. 132, 639, 1099, 1187, etc. as well. So this prophetic event certainly can occur post 70 A.D., that is more than once in history, so this event by itself does not stand. It can be a 1st century fulfillment as well as a future fulfillment for the prophecy not only concerns the temple but also 'the coming of Christ and the end of the age.'

No, you did not deal with the argument I presented. You did not explain why the same words could be "applied" both future and past. It is impossible to suggest that the Olivet Discourse could apply to events beyond 70 AD because it is centered on the destruction of the Temple, which was fulfilled in 70 AD. There was no temple in A.D. 132, 639, 1099, 1187, or at any time since then. The prophecy cannot apply to those dates.

This is confirmed by the UNITY of the three synoptic versions of the discourse. They say the same thing in the beginning, most of the middle, and at the end. The variations are no where near sufficient to justify your assertion that two are past and one is future.

And as I said, the words are similar in the 3 accounts because they are events that would occur later in history beyond 70 A.D.

That doesn't make any sense. You say that the same set of words is past in Matthew and Mark and future in Luke. If that is the case, why would Christ use the same sets of words? It makes it look like he's talking about the same events.

The many and clear contradictions in the Discourse shown in my commentary Discourse 1 pdf confirmed by scripture shows it to be a prophecy that spans the entire gospel/salvation age leading to the coming of Christ and the gathering (redemption) of the elect from the 4 winds of heaven and earth. That the Discourse has the dreaded 'time-gap' (gospel age) that many reject here and in Daniel 9, the final seven. But that's to be expected with prophecy, therefore the need for much study of every word.

The many and clear contradictions? Most people take that as an indication of error, not as a foundation for an otherwise unsupported eschatology.

The 2000+ year imaginary gap isn't rejected because it is not in the text and there is nothing in the text to suggest it exists.

The saints (Christians) in Jerusalem were delivered from the apostate rule of the Jews who were imprisoning, torturing, and killing them, exactly as stated in the Bible.
Mark 13:9 But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.
This cannot be future because there will never again be a time when the Jews are dragging Christians into synagogues to be beaten.

Yes, and I said that the 1st century fulfillment events are given beginning in Mt. 24:4-14a; Mark 13:5-13b; Luke 21:8-24a.

It appears you have forgotten the unity of the Bible. The persecution of the saints is an integral part of both the past and future prophecies.

Matthew 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. 23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

This is how we know that your Futurist interpretation is wrong. There will never again be a time when Christians are dragged into synagogues to be beaten. It also shows that Christ was talking about the land of Israel and environs, not the whole globe of planet earth.

Nothing?? The Discourse speaks of the 'elect' in Matthew 24:22 and Mark 13:20 the same passage that speaks of 'no flesh' being saved, but for the elect's sake, their survival, the days will be shortened. At Christ's coming it is this very 'elect' that Jesus sends his angels to gather 'from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven' (Mark 13:27; Mt. 24:31). The passage indicates a earthly gathering from the 4 directions of the whole inhabited earth, and not contained to the environs of Judea.

That's right - nothing. The "uttermost part" of the land is in the context of the land of Israel. The "elect" refers to the elect alive at that time, and they were all in Judea.

But the Discourse shows he IS talking about two different things, and it is not speculation. Mt. 24:15 and Mark 13:14 speaks of an abomination standing in the holy place, which Daniel makes clear speaks of the sanctuary. Whereas Luke 21:20 speaks of Jerusalem being compassed by armies. Huge difference here!

The language shows that the three synoptics were talking about the same event. They used the same words with some slight variations. You cannot justify destroying the unity of the discourse by appealing to unknowns like the meaning of the Abomination of Desolation. The meaning of that term is debated because the Bible does not tell us what it is. I know you think you have "figured it out" but I also know that your interpretation was designed to conform to your preconceived Futurism.

The Bible is telling us with certainty by these very contradictions, they are showing that the Discourse is not a unity but speaks of something else, something that we have been missing, something you reject, the dreaded time-gap.

So you want me to believe the Omniscient God speaks through contradictions knowing this would lead to ten thousand different interpretations and yours just happens to be the right one?

So the Bible is wrong on this point, or needs to be reinterpreted. In no case would this point justify shredding the text to make room for your Futurist eschatology. Resolution of this point under the Preterist interpretation wouldn't require a tenth of the hermeneutical gymnastics required to support your eschatology. That's the difference between the two positions. Preterism requires a lot less speculation and invention.

No, the Bible is not wrong on this point, it is you that rejects the truth of the text that contradicts your belief system, ie. preterism.

This has nothing to do with my "belief system" about eschatology. This should be obvious since I DON'T BELIEVE THE BIBLE! I am merely explaining what seems to be the eschatological that best fits the data of the Bible.

My point stands whether I am a believer or not. Preterism is hands down superior to Futurism because Futurism shreds the Bible into a meaningless mass of confetti that can be molded into any shape you like. Just look at your argument - you assert that the contradictions between the three versions trumps their unity! You are trying to use the minor differences and ambiguities to invent doctrines. If you thought the unity of the discourse supported your Futurism, you would argue just as strongly for it as you are for its opposite. That's the difference between you and I. My mind is free to accept whatever is written because I have no dog in this fight. It doesn't matter to me if Preterism or Futurism is the "best fit" for the Biblical data, because I don't believe the Bible is authoritative. This frees my mind so I can see reality, whereas you must protect your doctrine.

That point is absurd. Daniel's use of the phrase "holy people" was understood by everyone to refer to the Jews whether apostate or not. Your use of this point is making you look desperate, especially since you have written nothing that contradicts my primary point of the UNITY of the Olivet Discourse.

It doesn't matter what was understood, what matters is the NT would have to be taken into account for the prophecy's fulfillment of Dan. 9:24-26 brought in Christ, and the NC in 30 A.D. and the fall of the temple in 70 A.D. The prophecy of Dan. 9:27 and Dan. 12:7,11,12 speak of God's 'holy people.' Since when does God call apostates and the ungodly 'holy people' in scripture? That comes from a wrong conclusion of interpreting scripture.

I have given my points concerning your view of the unity of the Discourse, whether you accept or reject it is up to you.

It most certainly matters "what was understood."

You are trying to hang everything on minor points that stretch words way beyond their intended meaning. In a post long ago I showed that your logic was flawed because Jerusalem was referred to as the "Holy City" after the crucifixion. You then had to make up an excuse for why your logic didn't apply to that verse. And on it goes. Any evidence that contradicts your preferred doctrines is simply "explained away" and you don't seem to have any objective standards by which to discern between true and false. It's all just words, words, words. A mountain of opinions with nothing to ground them in reality.

You say that Dan. 9:24-27 and Dan.12:7,11,12 'God's holy people' are speaking about the apostate Jews of 1st century Jerusalem. And you hold that Mt. 24:15 and Mark 13:14 the 'abomination of desolation' is to be the prophecy of Luke 21:20, the Roman armies encompassing Jerusalem. But this can't be for several reasons.

We have never discussed the various Preterist interpretations of the AoD, and I'm not about to begin now. You see, I always try to establish the truth on the main and plain things that are supported by many mutually confirming verses. You, on the other hand, seek minor variations in parallel passages by which to create any inverted pyramid of speculation atop a contradiction! Your methodology is fundamentally flawed, in my estimation.

All the best,

Richard

[Twospirits]

Ram wrote,

No, you did not deal with the argument I presented. You did not explain why the same words could be "applied" both future and past. It is impossible to suggest that the Olivet Discourse could apply to events beyond 70 AD because it is centered on the destruction of the Temple, which was fulfilled in 70 AD. There was no temple in A.D. 132, 639, 1099, 1187, or at any time since then. The prophecy cannot apply to those dates.

This is confirmed by the UNITY of the three synoptic versions of the discourse. They say the same thing in the beginning, most of the middle, and at the end. The variations are no where near sufficient to justify your assertion that two are past and one is future.
That doesn't make any sense. You say that the same set of words is past in Matthew and Mark and future in Luke. If that is the case, why would Christ use the same sets of words? It makes it look like he's talking about the same events.

It can apply to post 70 A.D. because the destruction prophesied did not strictly apply to the temple alone though it would fall, but to all the buildings of the city Jerusalem; he was speaking specifically of the 'city of Jerusalem' and its people within that would be destroyed. Luke states this surrounding 'of Jerusalem' and "its desolation," thus the warning to flee Judea. Whereas Matthew and Mark do not, they say an abomination would be standing in 'the holy place' (in Mark, 'where it ought not'), then the warning given for those living there to flee the region of Judea when that time occurs.

You are mistaken on what you noted I said as past and future, I said Luke 21:20-24 fulfilled the temple/city's destruction, with Matthew 24: 15f and Mark 13:14f being the future time these events happen where those who live in Judea are told to flee for there shall be 'great tribulation.' It does not specify what that tribulation shall be, neither does it state to flee 'Jerusalem' because of 'surrounding armies' as in Luke, only that they are to flee the territory of Judea. Only Luke mentions the city of Jerusalem being surrounded by armies.

The many and clear contradictions? Most people take that as an indication of error, not as a foundation for an otherwise unsupported eschatology.

The 2000+ year imaginary gap isn't rejected because it is not in the text and there is nothing in the text to suggest it exists.

Other prophetic scriptures relating to the prophecy express that gap (ex. Mt. 28: 19-20; Acts 2:17-21) so doesn't Mt. 24:14, and the break from Luke 21:24f. All is explained in my commentary of the Discourse. It is not imaginary but quite prophetic and scriptural.

It appears you have forgotten the unity of the Bible. The persecution of the saints is an integral part of both the past and future prophecies.

Matthew 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. 23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

This is how we know that your Futurist interpretation is wrong. There will never again be a time when Christians are dragged into synagogues to be beaten. It also shows that Christ was talking about the land of Israel and environs, not the whole globe of planet earth.

So you're saying saints from the 1st century on can only be persecuted in synagogues, Israel and its environs and no where else? Persecution whether in Israel or elsewhere has, does, and will continue until Christ comes, persecution is an on-going prophecy.

That's right - nothing. The "uttermost part" of the land is in the context of the land of Israel. The "elect" refers to the elect alive at that time, and they were all in Judea.

What? The elect were all in Judea only? The whole NT shows you to be wrong, they were scattered throughout the inhabited world of the Roman empire! The context tells us at Christ's coming the elect are gathered throughout the whole inhabited earth!

The language shows that the three synoptics were talking about the same event. They used the same words with some slight variations. You cannot justify destroying the unity of the discourse by appealing to unknowns like the meaning of the Abomination of Desolation. The meaning of that term is debated because the Bible does not tell us what it is. I know you think you have "figured it out" but I also know that your interpretation was designed to conform to your preconceived Futurism.

A false interpretation would contradict and not agree with scripture. The commentary explains this with scripture of what an 'abomination' is and why it 'causes desolation,' to much to go into here, but those interested need only read it for themselves. http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/show...5481#post35481

So you want me to believe the Omniscient God speaks through contradictions knowing this would lead to ten thousand different interpretations and yours just happens to be the right one?

Let me rephrase, by 'the wording of the context' in the Discourse is how we know they are speaking of different things. Why I said: Mt. 24:15 and Mark 13:14 speaks of an abomination standing in the holy place, which Daniel makes clear is speaking of the sanctuary. Whereas Luke 21:20 makes it clear it speaks of Jerusalem being compassed by armies. Huge difference here!

You are trying to use the minor differences and ambiguities to invent doctrines.

You are trying to hang everything on minor points that stretch words way beyond their intended meaning.

I don't call the prophecy of Mt. 24:15 that relates to the prophecy of Dan. 9:27; Dan. 12: 7,11,12 and Revelation 'minor differences and ambiguities' it is the great bulk of the prophecy!!

You are trying to hang everything on minor points that stretch words way beyond their intended meaning. In a post long ago I showed that your logic was flawed because Jerusalem was referred to as the "Holy City" after the crucifixion. You then had to make up an excuse for why your logic didn't apply to that verse

What you see and call 'minor points' are in reality major hermeneutical points in studying eschatology and scripture for its truth. I didn't 'make up an excuse' but is a grammatical fact when writing historical accounts. This is what the writer Matthew (He wrote his gospel in the 50's A.D.) of scripture was doing, giving an historical account of what was known as being 'the holy city.' But by their rejection of Christ, Jesus cursed it to desolation and no longer 'holy' in God's eyes, history is the proof of this truth. Matthew was simply giving an accurate historical account given in those passages. But you seem to believe otherwise and call my logic flawed.

We have never discussed the various Preterist interpretations of the AoD, and I'm not about to begin now. You see, I always try to establish the truth on the main and plain things that are supported by many mutually confirming verses. You, on the other hand, seek minor variations in parallel passages by which to create any inverted pyramid of speculation atop a contradiction! Your methodology is fundamentally flawed, in my estimation.

Suit yourself its fine with me, but if the readers are interested there was some discussion on this issue here: http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/show...5481#post35481 before it got way off-topic.

What you call 'slight variations' and 'minor differences' such as 'the abomination of desolation' vs. 'Jerusalem surrounded by armies'= 'same' in preterist hermeneutics, I call a gross error of those hermeneutics when approaching the study of eschatology and scripture to find the truth of what the texts are communicating. The difference of those two examples given are like night and day!

God bless---Twospirits

[weeder]

Their most egregious error is that they must assert that the prophecies of the Olivet Discourse are a mix of past and future fulfillment, but there no logically consistent way to chop up those passages into past and future.

High Richard.

Some observations in luke that suggest 70 AD was not the end.


Verse 9 seems to indicate that the temples destruction was not the end.

And while some were talking about the temple, that it was adorned with beautiful stones and votive gifts, He said, 6 “As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down.”
7 They questioned Him, saying, “Teacher, when therefore will these things happen? And what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?” 8 And He said, “See to it that you are not misled; for many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am He,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not go after them. 9 When you hear of wars and disturbances, do not be terrified; for these things must take place first, but the end does not follow immediately.”

Rumours of war and disturbances came to a head in 70 AD. That had to happen first, but that was not the end.Clearly, the rest of the olivet discourse speaks of a period of time after the destruction of Temple and Jerusalem. This period involves exile of the Jews to all nations--Times of the Gentiles trampling Jerusalem, with a view of that period coming to an end. Any dates from history that suggest an end to Gentile control of Jerusalem?


verse 25--dismay by all nations ( not just Jerusalem) at the things coming upon the world.

Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

25 “There will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth dismay among nations, in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves, 26 men fainting from fear and the expectation of the things which are coming upon the world; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 27 Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

verse 35---the end will come upon all those on the face of all the earth, not just Jerusalem in AD70.



What we have is a global event where all nations witness him coming again...see Rev 1 (every eye will see him, even those that pierced him.)
This indicates to me the ressurection of all the dead at Christs second coming...see verse 28.

Rom 8
And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. 24*For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees? 25*But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.


2Tim 4
For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. 7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith; 8 in the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing....see also 2 Thess 1.



Paul is about to die, and he sees a future day of ressurection to recieve his reward along with everyone else.. on the day of his appearing.

Clearly the new Hev and Earth and the second coming are a future event, and can in no way be applied to the events of 70AD.

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, 4 and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.”


Im still crying and im still mourning...and ive got a headache. I await eagerly for these first things to pass away.The second coming of Christ will be that day.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

High Richard.

Ha! I'm guessing that wasn't a typo!

Some observations in luke that suggest 70 AD was not the end.

Verse 9 seems to indicate that the temples destruction was not the end.

And while some were talking about the temple, that it was adorned with beautiful stones and votive gifts, He said, 6 “As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down.”
7 They questioned Him, saying, “Teacher, when therefore will these things happen? And what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?” 8 And He said, “See to it that you are not misled; for many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am He,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not go after them. 9 When you hear of wars and disturbances, do not be terrified; for these things must take place first, but the end does not follow immediately.”

Rumours of war and disturbances came to a head in 70 AD. That had to happen first, but that was not the end.Clearly, the rest of the olivet discourse speaks of a period of time after the destruction of Temple and Jerusalem. This period involves exile of the Jews to all nations--Times of the Gentiles trampling Jerusalem, with a view of that period coming to an end. Any dates from history that suggest an end to Gentile control of Jerusalem?

I'm glad you joined the conversation weeder. But I don't see how you assertion follow from what you wrote. The "rumors of wars and disturbances" did not merely "come to a head in 70 AD." It seems obvious to me that that was the terminus of the discourse which Christ began with the prediction of the destruction of the Temple.

The "period of exile" as you call it is not said to be a "period" at all. We don't even know what the "times of the Gentiles" means because the Bible does not say. Therefore, that fragment of one verse is not sufficient to overthrow the overall unity of the entire message. If you try to logically lay out which parts are future and which past, you will find that the only possibility is that they are all past, or that the Bible is incoherent. I've done a very thorough analysis that you can review. Here is an overview from earlier in this thread (have you read Post #3 where I lay it out?). Here are the basic facts. There is a profound "entanglement" of all three records of the Olivet Discourse. There is no logically consistently way to argue that Matthew and Mark record one event while Luke records another, especially since all three follow the same basic pattern from beginning to end as seen in this exhaustive list of parallels:

• SYNOPTIC Christ predicts Destruction of the First Century Temple
• SYNOPTIC The Disciples ask, When will these things be?
• SYNOPTIC Jesus answered, Take heed that no man deceive you!
• SYNOPTIC Wars and Rumours of Wars ~ The Six Seals of Revelation
• SYNOPTIC Persecution for Jesus' Name
• SYNOPTIC The Days of Vengeance
• LUKE ONLY Christ Predicts the Dispora
• MATT/MARK The Great Tribulation
• MATT/MARK False Christs
• MATT ONLY As Lightning shineth from East to West
• SYNOPTIC The Coming of the Son of Man
• SYNOPTIC The Answer to the Question of "When?" ~ This Generation!

All three synoptic Gospels begin with the same set of six parallel passages with only minor variations, and end with the same pair of parallel passages. Thus, all but four subsections are found in each synoptic Gospel, and the parallel passages appear in the same order in all three synoptic Gospels. It seems impossible to assert that such detailed and consistent parallels could be coherently separated into two distinct events.

So now we see two issues that need to overcome by anyone who says that the three versions speak of different events: 1) the total entanglement of all three records, and 2) the strong agreement in the overall pattern of all three records. This seems to me an impossible task.

verse 25--dismay by all nations ( not just Jerusalem) at the things coming upon the world.

verse 35---the end will come upon all those on the face of all the earth, not just Jerusalem in AD70.

Remember, the word "world" denotes the "world of Israel" which speaks only of the surrounding nations. Alaska and China are not included. This is a fundamental misunderstanding that plagues the vast majority of Futurist interpretations.

What we have is a global event where all nations witness him coming again...see Rev 1 (every eye will see him, even those that pierced him.)
This indicates to me the ressurection of all the dead at Christs second coming...see verse 28.

That is absolutely false. There are no NT prophecies that speak of the globe.

Rom 8
And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. 24*For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees? 25*But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.

Yes, Romans 8 is a big problem for the Bible. If we take it at face value, then we know the Bible is false because the transformation that Paul expected did not happen in the time frame that Paul said it would.

2Tim 4
For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. 7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith; 8 in the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing....see also 2 Thess 1.

Paul is about to die, and he sees a future day of ressurection to recieve his reward along with everyone else.. on the day of his appearing.

Clearly the new Hev and Earth and the second coming are a future event, and can in no way be applied to the events of 70AD.

If you want the Bible to be true, then you need to reinterpret those passages. There is no reason to think that the resurrection would be visible to us down here. We don't see Christ running around in his resurrection body so there is no reason we should expect to see Paul. Thus, if you want to believe the Bible, then you can choose to believe that Paul got resurrected. That's the solution I accepted when I was a Christian. But now I just think it's another obvious error in the Bible.

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, 4 and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.”

Im still crying and im still mourning...and ive got a headache. I await eagerly for these first things to pass away.The second coming of Christ will be that day.

Most Christians believe they will be in heaven when they die. According to the Bible, it is wrong to put all your hope in this world. That's the fundamental error of Futurism.

Great chatting!

Richard