Typical questions people ask about the Olivet Discourse.

[Timtofly]

Is Numbers 25:9 in your Bible?

Why not open it once in a while for some answers?

And FYI, "cut off" is not the translation in any English version.

Stop substituting your personal falsifications.

You brought them up in some argument, and you don't even know what the point of the argument even is.

 

[covenantee]

You brought them up in some argument, and you don't even know what the point of the argument even is.

Enlighten us.

 

[CadyandZoe]

You do not know? What chapter did we discuss? Does Matthew 24 ring a bell? You need to re-read our conversation and find out, genius. Regardless you got the interpreation for WHOLE chapter of Matthew 24 all wrong. This has NOTHING to do with Jews in the Middle East. But that is not surprising with the doctrines of Preterists, Premillennialists, and even some Amillennialists anyway. So no, you do not even get the context "OF" Matthew 24 correct.

The text does not support your claims.

 

[CadyandZoe]

History doesn't kid. It records the flight of the Judeaean Christians (the Elect) to Pella prior to 70 AD. That included Jewish Christians.

There were also Jews in other nations. (Acts 2:5)

There was never any threat to the existence of the Jewish people.

What? Give me a break.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Scripture shows that it doesn't.

Your interpretation of scripture is based on a faulty premise.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Here’s something to think about or maybe discuss in your group, the days being cut short are almost always assumed to be ending sooner than it should. This isn’t necessarily true.

For example, we could say some kind of tribulation will happen at your work for five days but this plan has changed and now tribulation will be cut short to three days.

If the original tribulation was going to happen Monday through Friday, then there are several options as to what happens when it’s cut short. The tribulation could start on Monday as originally planned and end Wednesday, the tribulation could start later than originally planned by starting on Wednesday and ending Friday, or it could start Tuesday and end Thursday.

What I think should be considered is that the days shortened meaning a later start date does agree with a few verses such as 2 Peter 3:9.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack <1019> (I am slow, I delay, tarry) concerning his promise, as some men count slackness <1022> (slowness, delay, tardiness) but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Matthew 24:48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;

Matthew 25:5 While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.

Revelation 10:6 (NIV) And he swore by him who lives for ever and ever, who created the heavens and all that is in them, the earth and all that is in it, and the sea and all that is in it, and said, “There will be no more delay!

I agree with you that Jesus didn't mean to say that the tribulation isn't going to last as long as it should. Rather, Jesus wants us to reflect on our expectations in light of God's will. As we reflect at how much the Jewish people have suffered all these years, we wonder why the Jews exist. We can only conclude that God has miraculously kept them around after all these years of persecution, oppression, and attempts at genocide.

 

[CadyandZoe]

The new testament contains the law of God and Christians keep it, as best as any flawed humans have. You would need to specify old covenant law of God if that's what you meant. "the law of God" is simply any current enforced law by God upon his people/followers which since the cross would be new covenant law.

OT Law is what John meant.

 

[covenantee]

Your interpretation of scripture is based on a faulty premise.

Scripture interprets Scripture.

I only need to quote it.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Scripture interprets Scripture.

I only need to quote it.

The idea that scripture interprets scripture is one of your faulty assumptions. The other faulty assumption you hold is that the OT doesn't mean what it says.

 

[covenantee]

The idea that scripture interprets scripture is one of your faulty assumptions. The other faulty assumption you hold is that the OT doesn't mean what it says.

Who or what interprets Scripture?

1. You
or
2. Scripture

Do you need a hint?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Who or what interprets Scripture?

1. You
or
2. Scripture

Do you need a hint?

Me. Every reader interprets scripture. That is the definition of reading. The axiom that scripture interprets scripture is nothing more and nothing less than an excuse to ignore what the OT says.

 

[covenantee]

Me. Every reader interprets scripture. That is the definition of reading. The axiom that scripture interprets scripture is nothing more and nothing less than an excuse to ignore what the OT says.

You can interpret your Scripture.

I'll let Scripture interpret mine.

 

[ewq1938]

OT Law is what John meant.

No, the old law was replaced by the new law (and covenant).

Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

This is clearly the NT law of God not OT.

 

[TribulationSigns]

The text does not support your claims.

Say a man who does not have a clue about the context Lord Jesus Christ talked about.

 

[Gottservant]

Hi all,
Our men's group is discussing the Olivet Discourse and in order to facilitate a good discussion, I would like to present a list of typical questions often asked about the subject. Can you help me think of questions to ask?

I already have three in mind.

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

What does Jesus mean by "the elect"?​

What does Jesus mean by "this generation?"​

Can you think of other questions that we typically ask? Our meeting is next week. I want to gather your questions and put them together with mine and make a list for our group to follow.

Thanks in advance. :)

I would hazard a guess at the broadest question: was Jesus' approach to the Olivet discourse hot or cold? (and the second is like it) Why was it cold?

 

[CadyandZoe]

You can interpret your Scripture.

I'll let Scripture interpret mine.

Okay, as long as we don't force an incorrect interpretation of the NT onto the OT, which is the habit of Amillennialism.

 

[CadyandZoe]

No, the old law was replaced by the new law (and covenant).

Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

This is clearly the NT law of God not OT.

According to John, the group of people who will face the wrath of the dragon have two distinct characteristics: 1) they keep the commandments of God, and 2) they have the testimony of Jesus Christ. These two characteristics are different from each other. If John was referring to Christians, his mention of "keeping the commandments of God" would be unnecessary. Christians are those who keep the commandments of Jesus Christ, but Jewish Christians are those who keep both the commandments of Jesus Christ and the commandments of God. Hence, John is talking about Jewish Christians.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Say a man who does not have a clue about the context Lord Jesus Christ talked about.

I'm not sure what you mean. I am reacting to your claim that the Olivet discourse has nothing at all to do with Jews in the Middle East in light of the fact that Jesus explicitly mentions Jews in the Middle East, specifically Jews living in Jerusalem who may need to travel on a Sabbath to escape the destruction of the city and the temple, both located in the Middle East.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I would hazard a guess at the broadest question: was Jesus' approach to the Olivet discourse hot or cold? (and the second is like it) Why was it cold?

What do you mean by "hot" and "cold"? I haven't heard this expression used in this context before.

 

[Timtofly]

Enlighten us.

I did.