Typical questions people ask about the Olivet Discourse.

[3 Resurrections]

Zealots guilty of insurrection? OR thieves, guilty of stealing? I think this passage states the latter, not the former.

No, these two "lawless" ones crucified beside Christ were Zealots who had committed insurrection against Rome along with Barabbas. Mark 15:7 tells us, "And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound WITH THEM that had made insurrection WITH HIM, who had committed murder in the insurrection." These others who had committed insurrection were not released with the Zealot murderer Barabbas, but ended up being crucified on either side of Christ. The Zealots were well known for stealing to help supply those who had joined their cause.

The "Man of Lawlessness" in 2 Thess. 2 was a first century Zealot leader.

Bingo.

1. “All the names which in the Scripture are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that He is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope.” Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, De Conciliorum Auctoriatate (On the Authority of the Councils) Bk 2, chap. 17
2. “The pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God. He is the divine monarch and supreme emperor, and king of kings. Hence the pope is crowned with a triple crown, as King of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions.” Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, vol.6, art. “Papa II”
3. “We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.” Pope Leo XIII, in an encyclical letter dated June 20, 1894, The Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII, p. 304.

You've got the wrong timing for the false christs to appear on the scene. Jesus said that "false christs" were going to have false prophet supporters who would be claiming that their particular pseudo-christ would either be in the wilderness or in the "secret chambers" (Matt. 24:5 & 23-26). These "secret chambers" were a distinct feature of the old Jerusalem temple. They were called "the chamber of secrets": rooms in the temple set aside for anonymous donations for the poor, collected and dispensed to the poor anonymously at intervals. Also another chamber where anonymous donations for the temple's upkeep could be collected.

Once that temple was torn down to the last stone (the "secret chambers" included), no one would ever again be making such a claim after that time about a false christ doing this. Christ was predicting the increase of those false christs for His own generation. They would stake their claim to the Messiah the Prince role as close as possible to Daniel's predicted year of AD 30 for Messiah the Prince's coming so that their deception would not be easily detected by their fellow Jews.

As I asked before: when has anyone ever urged people to go out into the wilderness to gather there in support of the papacy? Yet we do have this going on already in Acts 21:38. The chief captain asked Paul, "Art not thou that Egyptian, which before these days madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers?" This was yet another insurrection of Zealot murderers gathering in the wilderness against Rome, led by an Egyptian that time. It was yet another example of the Zealot cause being "the mystery of iniquity that doth already work" in Paul's days.

 

[covenantee]

No, these two "lawless" ones crucified beside Christ were Zealots who had committed insurrection against Rome along with Barabbas. Mark 15:7 tells us, "And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound WITH THEM that had made insurrection WITH HIM, who had committed murder in the insurrection." These others who had committed insurrection were not released with the Zealot murderer Barabbas, but ended up being crucified on either side of Christ. The Zealots were well known for stealing to help supply those who had joined their cause.

The "Man of Lawlessness" in 2 Thess. 2 was a first century Zealot leader.


You've got the wrong timing for the false christs to appear on the scene. Jesus said that "false christs" were going to have false prophet supporters who would be claiming that their particular pseudo-christ would either be in the wilderness or in the "secret chambers" (Matt. 24:5 & 23-26). These "secret chambers" were a distinct feature of the old Jerusalem temple. They were called "the chamber of secrets": rooms in the temple set aside for anonymous donations for the poor, collected and dispensed to the poor anonymously at intervals. Also another chamber where anonymous donations for the temple's upkeep could be collected.

Once that temple was torn down to the last stone (the "secret chambers" included), no one would ever again be making such a claim after that time about a false christ doing this. Christ was predicting the increase of those false christs for His own generation. They would stake their claim to the Messiah the Prince role as close as possible to Daniel's predicted year of AD 30 for Messiah the Prince's coming so that their deception would not be easily detected by their fellow Jews.

As I asked before: when has anyone ever urged people to go out into the wilderness to gather there in support of the papacy? Yet we do have this going on already in Acts 21:38. The chief captain asked Paul, "Art not thou that Egyptian, which before these days madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers?" This was yet another insurrection of Zealot murderers gathering in the wilderness against Rome, led by an Egyptian that time. It was yet another example of the Zealot cause being "the mystery of iniquity that doth already work" in Paul's days.

There is no "wrong timing" for antichrists. John declared that there were already many when he wrote (1 John 2:18). They will be with us until Christ returns. The apostate papacy was one of the many throughout history, the prevailing antichrist of its epoch.

I've provided irrefutable compelling verbatim evidence, in the apostate papacy's own words; that it was an antichrist.

You've provided no such evidence about Menahem.

Because no such evidence exists.

 

[3 Resurrections]

I've provided irrefutable compelling verbatim evidence, in the apostate papacy's own words; that it was an antichrist.

No, you haven't given the right kind of evidence, according to John's definition of what an antichrist is.

"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son" (1 John 2:22).

"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist." (2 John 7).

The papacy has adopted many corrupted doctrines and practices, but at the very least it does not deny that Jesus Christ came in the flesh as the prophesied Messiah. The papacy has never denied the Father and the Son. Therefore the papacy is not an antichrist by John's definition. And the papacy has never made the statement "I am Christ". In other words, "I am Daniel's prophesied Messiah the Christ that should come into the world." Daniel 9:26's prophecy also included the prediction that Messiah the Prince who should come would be "cut off" in death after the 69th week. No member of the papacy would desire to be "cut off" by death. They each want to perpetuate their existence and power over the church.

The purpose of the Zealot cause was to raise up a false christ substitute "Messiah the Prince" instead of Jesus; a military Messiah who would deliver their nation from Roman control. The Zealots denied that Jesus came as the Son of God in the flesh, fulfilling Daniel's Messiah prophecy. THEY were the antichrist / false christ substitutes in that first century generation, and were the ones coming who Jesus warned His disciples about, and told them not to follow them.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Why did Paul and Peter identify the Church as the Elect?

The term "elect" means different things according to the context. Matthew 24 records Jesus' information concerning the disposition of the temple, the Jewish nation, and Jesus' kinsmen. The "elect" in that context refers to the Jewish people whom God chose to be his people. Deuteronomy 7:6

 

[TribulationSigns]

The term "elect" means different things according to the context. Matthew 24 records Jesus' information concerning the disposition of the temple, the Jewish nation, and Jesus' kinsmen. The "elect" in that context refers to the Jewish people whom God chose to be his people. Deuteronomy 7:6

Sigh…

 

[CadyandZoe]

Just tuning into this thread . . . how did your discussion go?

The discussion is going well and it remains focused on the questions at hand. So I appreciate all the responses that I received.

I'll give my answers even though late . . .

Why does Luke talk about armies while Mark and Matthew talk about the Abomination of Desolation?

In this particular respect, Luke gives Jesus prophecy concerning 70 AD and the destruction of Jerusalem, while Matthew records Jesus' prophecy of the end of the age.
What does Jesus mean by "the elect"?

The Chosen, and the Nations. The elect that Jesus referred to, Israel, the chosen nation.

What does Jesus mean by "this generation?"

Genea can mean "all those born in this time frame", or, "all those alive in this time frame", or, "those born from a common ancestor".

In saying, "This generation", Jesus indicates one close at hand, "this", yet states that it will not pass away until these things be fulfulled. Of the three possibilities, the only one that can be both close to Jesus, and there at the end, is "those born from a common ancestor", the Israelites.

This fits the context as He had just moments before prophesied that they would not all be destroyed before He returned.

Much love!

Jesus speaks about "this generation" many times in the Gospels and not just in the Olivet Discourse. Does this fact have a bearing on what he means in Matthew 24 for instance?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Why did Paul and Peter identify the Church as the Elect?

I think Jesus is talking about God's chosen people, Israel, in that context, and for the reason I hinted earlier. Jesus is predicting an existential threat to "the elect" suggesting that if the time of the tribulation is not shortened, no flesh would be alive. I don't see how this statement is relevant to the Church since Jesus already said that the gates of Hell can not defeat it. In other words, there is no existential threat against the church.

 

[marks]

The discussion is going well and it remains focused on the questions at hand. So I appreciate all the responses that I received.

Jesus speaks about "this generation" many times in the Gospels and not just in the Olivet Discourse. Does this fact have a bearing on what he means in Matthew 24 for instance?

Context is king, is my thinking.

Much love!

 

[Davidpt]

Jesus speaks about "this generation" many times in the Gospels and not just in the Olivet Discourse. Does this fact have a bearing on what he means in Matthew 24 for instance?

It should be a simple matter of letting context determine what He is meaning in the Discourse pertaining to this generation. The context He said that in, is it involving first century events? Or is it involving the end of this age and events involving the 2nd coming?

Something else that matters is, when He said that in relation to what else He said in the Discourse.

For example, He said the following before He ever said anything about this generation not passing away, until all things are fulfilled first.

Luke 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Later in the Discourse He then said this.

Luke 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.


Obviously then, this generation can't pass away until this has been fulfilled first---until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. IOW, one can't exclude that from this---till all be fulfilled. It says all things not just some things, have to be fulfilled before this generation can pass away. This alone destroys the Preterist interpretation of Luke 21:32. Except Preterists try and get around this by unconvincingly arguing that the times of the Gentiles have already been fulfilled 2000 years ago, which then if true makes nonsense out of the 42 month reign of the beast that has to occur in the end of this age, since that is obviously still involving the times of the Gentiles.

Revelation 11:1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

This---for it is given unto the Gentiles---obviously, is still involving this---the times of the Gentiles.

And this---and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months--is obviously involving this--and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months(Revelation 13:5)--And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them(Revelation 13:7)--and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed(Revelation 13:15)

Nothing pertaining to Revelation 13 has a single thing to do with events involving 70 AD. Yet, obviously have something to do with the times of the Gentiles, though. Therefore, it is not remotely reasonable to argue that the times of the Gentiles have already been fulfilled 2000 years ago. Nor is it remotely reasonable to argue that this generation can pass away before the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled first. IOW, if this doesn't debunk the Preterist interpretation of Luke 21:32, nothing does. Except we all know how it works, though. Even though something has been undeniably debunked, no one ever wants to admit that that actually happened. We then continue debating things that should no longer be debatable since some stubbornly place their doctrines above the truth.

 

[marks]

No, these two "lawless" ones crucified beside Christ were Zealots who had committed insurrection against Rome along with Barabbas. Mark 15:7 tells us, "And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound WITH THEM that had made insurrection WITH HIM, who had committed murder in the insurrection." These others who had committed insurrection were not released with the Zealot murderer Barabbas, but ended up being crucified on either side of Christ. The Zealots were well known for stealing to help supply those who had joined their cause.

This is a good point, but this was Barabbas, the other two who were on either side of Jesus are identified as thieves, not insurrectionists and murderers. I'd have to say that this isn't stated in Scripture, though I understand your reason for thinking so.

The "Man of Lawlessness" in 2 Thess. 2 was a first century Zealot leader.

I'm thinking this is still to come.

Much love!

 

[covenantee]

No, you haven't given the right kind of evidence, according to John's definition of what an antichrist is.

"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son" (1 John 2:22).

"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist." (2 John 7).

The papacy has adopted many corrupted doctrines and practices, but at the very least it does not deny that Jesus Christ came in the flesh as the prophesied Messiah. The papacy has never denied the Father and the Son. Therefore the papacy is not an antichrist by John's definition. And the papacy has never made the statement "I am Christ". In other words, "I am Daniel's prophesied Messiah the Christ that should come into the world." Daniel 9:26's prophecy also included the prediction that Messiah the Prince who should come would be "cut off" in death after the 69th week. No member of the papacy would desire to be "cut off" by death. They each want to perpetuate their existence and power over the church.

The purpose of the Zealot cause was to raise up a false christ substitute "Messiah the Prince" instead of Jesus; a military Messiah who would deliver their nation from Roman control. The Zealots denied that Jesus came as the Son of God in the flesh, fulfilling Daniel's Messiah prophecy. THEY were the antichrist / false christ substitutes in that first century generation, and were the ones coming who Jesus warned His disciples about, and told them not to follow them.

As you yourself affirmed previously, an antichrist is another or substitute Christ.

The quotations I've provided establish that beyond any doubt.

Since there is only one Christ, any claim to be another Christ is a denial of the only Christ.

The apostate papacy is a clear fulfillment of both a substitute Christ, and a denied Christ.

Conversely, there is no affirmative historical evidence for "Menahem the Antichrist".

 

[covenantee]

I think Jesus is talking about God's chosen people, Israel, in that context, and for the reason I hinted earlier. Jesus is predicting an existential threat to "the elect" suggesting that if the time of the tribulation is not shortened, no flesh would be alive. I don't see how this statement is relevant to the Church since Jesus already said that the gates of Hell can not defeat it. In other words, there is no existential threat against the church.

Paul and Peter identified the Church as the Elect to eliminate any confusion about who the Elect are.

They are God's Chosen People in every context.

I've provided multiple affirmative verses.

Scripture interprets Scripture.

 

[covenantee]

The term "elect" means different things according to the context. Matthew 24 records Jesus' information concerning the disposition of the temple, the Jewish nation, and Jesus' kinsmen. The "elect" in that context refers to the Jewish people whom God chose to be his people. Deuteronomy 7:6

No, it doesn't.

The Elect in the NT are the NT Church in every context.

As Paul and Peter confirm.

Scripture interprets Scripture.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Paul and Peter identified the Church as the Elect to eliminate any confusion about who the Elect are.

They are God's Chosen People in every context.

I've provided multiple affirmative verses.

Scripture interprets Scripture.

Again, the term "elect" has different meanings and depends on the context.

 

[CadyandZoe]

No, it doesn't.

The Elect in the NT are the NT Church in every context.

As Paul and Peter confirm.

Scripture interprets Scripture.

In an OT context, the elect are the Jewish people. And Jesus is speaking to Jewish people about a judgment against Jerusalem and the Jewish leaders. The Great Tribulation is a Jewish tribulation, and if that Jewish tribulation hadn't been shortened, the Jewish people would no longer exist.

 

[covenantee]

Again, the term "elect" has different meanings and depends on the context.

Again, it doesn't.

 

[covenantee]

In an OT context, the elect are the Jewish people. And Jesus is speaking to Jewish people about a judgment against Jerusalem and the Jewish leaders. The Great Tribulation is a Jewish tribulation, and if that Jewish tribulation hadn't been shortened, the Jewish people would no longer exist.

In the OT, the elect are the faithful obedient Israelites within Israel.

In the NT, they are the faithful obedient Christians in the world, Christ's Church.

And no others.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Obviously then, this generation can't pass away until this has been fulfilled first---until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. IOW, one can't exclude that from this---till all be fulfilled. It says all things not just some things, have to be fulfilled before this generation can pass away.

Really good point in my opinion. This is why I hold that "generation" means "genealogy" i.e. "race" The Jewish people will survive down through history and for this reason, they will witness the return of Christ etc.

Right? What am I missing? :)

 

[CadyandZoe]

In the OT, the elect are the faithful obedient Israelites within Israel.

In the NT, they are the faithful obedient Christians in the world, Christ's Church.

And no others.

Sorry, I think you are inserting ideas that aren't in the scriptures.

 

[covenantee]

Sorry, I think you are inserting ideas that aren't in the scriptures.

Show where faith and obedience aren't in the Scriptures.