Response to Ricky on Pretrib

[Zao is life]

I've had enough of this kind of talk, thanks but no thanks. I think people should feel free to agree or disagree, support or refute, whatever. But I'm not the topic, and you don't know me.

Derision for others isn't a good look.

Much love!

I'm not deriding you at all. I'm pointing out that you never mentioned the word "ALL" in your quote of Jeremiah which makes it obvious that you need to ignore that word, and so you have ignored that word.

Your response is betraying your anger at the fact that I pointed out that you have ignored the word ALL in the part of Jeremiah that you quoted and compared it with our teacher Paul's statements about this, and you do not have an answer.

God bless you, Marks.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Distress is an emotion. Is tribulation an emotion?

Answer the question please, S.I, so that we can concentrate on the context of the great tribulation mentioned in Matthew 24 vs the context of the wrath of God mentioned in Luke 21.

You've seen my posts. You've given reactions to some of them. Do I seem like someone who doesn't respond to people's questions?

If someone is distressed then they are going through tribulation. They go hand in hand. There is no basis for trying to act as if there's some big difference between "great distress" and "great tribulation". There isn't. Great distress is caused by great tribulation.

Luke 9:51
"Now when the days drew near for him to be taken up, Jesus set out resolutely to go to Jerusalem."

Luke 17
- on the way to Jerusalem -

"And He said to the disciples, The days will come when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and you shall not see it. And they shall say to you, Lo, here! or, behold, there! Do not go away, nor follow.

For as the lightning which lights up, flashing from the one part under heaven, and shines to the other part under heaven, so also shall the Son of man be in His day.

But first He must suffer many things and be rejected of this generation.

And as it was in the days of Noah, so it also shall be in the days of the Son of man. Even so it shall be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

In that day he who shall be on the housetop, and his goods in the house, let him not come down to take them away. And likewise, he who is in the field, let him not return to the things behind.

Two shall be in the field, one will be taken, and the other left.
And they answered and said to Him, Where, Lord? And He said to them,

Wherever the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together." (Luke 17:22-26 & 31, 36-37).

The similarities in Luke's gospel of what according to Luke Jesus was saying when He was on His way to Jerusalem are obvious to the record in Matthew's gospel of what Jesus was saying when He was on the Mount of Olives.

So how far do you want to take the similarities between Matthew 21:16-20 and Luke 21:20-24? As far as saying that Jesus said the same things that He said on His way to Jerusalem again when He was on the Mount of Olives?

Why are you not specifically addressing what I said in my post? You are very hard to follow. Do you or do you not believe that Luke 21:20-24 is a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-21? Yes or no?

You can't just ignore my questions and then expect me to answer yours. Can you address my questions and points first and then I'll address yours? That's how discussions should work.

I know you will, because despite there not being sufficient evidence in the above records that He did say the same things twice, you have already asserted before that He did repeat the above things, and you have asserted this rather than admit that the reason why the synoptic gospels are called "synoptic" is not because they all have the times and days when certain things took place and when certain things were said the same, but because they have the actual things that took place and the actual things that were said the same.

So your entire argument about the similarities between what Luke said about the wrath of God in Luke 21:20-24 and the great tribulation in Matthew 24:16-20 falls flat on the above fact about biblical scripture and the synoptic gospels alone.

So, is this your way of saying that you don't believe that Luke 21:20-24 is a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-21? Which would mean you think that Jesus said "Let those in Judea flee to the mountains" and "But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days!" twice during the Olivet Discourse?

But there is more that torpedoes that line of thinking you have.

You have done nothing to supposedly torpedo that line of thinking so far. I'm comparing two passages from the same discourse and you're talking about passages from two different discourses. Can we deal with the Olivet Discourse first before talking about the other discourse?

I'll come to it. But let's concentrate on the context of Jesus reference to "great tribulation" in Matthew 24 compared to the context of "wrath upon this people" in Luke 21:20-24.

The context is the same. There is no basis for thinking that those are not parallel passages. Jesus did not say the exact same things twice during the Olivet Discourse. Why would He do that? That makes no sense.

 

[Zao is life]

Do you not believe the following is a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-21?

Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

Distress is an emotion. Is tribulation an emotion?

Answer the question please, S.I, so that we can concentrate on the context of the great tribulation mentioned in Matthew 24 vs the context of the wrath of God mentioned in Luke 21.

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to her, how often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you would not!

Behold, your house is left to you desolate. For I say to you, You shall not see Me from now on until you say, "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord."

* It was two days before His crucifixion, according to the chronology of the text in Matthew's gospel.

"Now as Jesus was going out of the temple courts and walking away, his disciples came to show him the temple buildings. And he said to them, "Do you see all these things? I tell you the truth, not one stone will be left on another. All will be torn down!" (Matthew 23:37-24:2).

--- Every day Jesus was teaching in the temple courts,
but at night he went and stayed on the Mount of Olives. --- Luke 21:37

--- As he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, his disciples came to him privately and said, "Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"

The first thing Jesus then began to speak and warn about in response to the above question, was the tribulation and persecution that the living stones of the New Testament Temple will experience:

Luke 9:51
"Now when the days drew near for him to be taken up, Jesus set out resolutely to go to Jerusalem."

Luke 17
- on the way to Jerusalem -

"And He said to the disciples, The days will come when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and you shall not see it. And they shall say to you, Lo, here! or, behold, there! Do not go away, nor follow.

For as the lightning which lights up, flashing from the one part under heaven, and shines to the other part under heaven, so also shall the Son of man be in His day.

But first He must suffer many things and be rejected of this generation.

And as it was in the days of Noah, so it also shall be in the days of the Son of man. Even so it shall be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

In that day he who shall be on the housetop, and his goods in the house, let him not come down to take them away. And likewise, he who is in the field, let him not return to the things behind.

Two shall be in the field, one will be taken, and the other left.
And they answered and said to Him, Where, Lord? And He said to them,

Wherever the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together." (Luke 17:22-26 & 31, 36-37).

The similarities in Luke's gospel of what according to Luke Jesus was saying when He was on His way to Jerusalem are obvious to the record in Matthew's gospel of what Jesus was saying when He was on the Mount of Olives.

So how far do you want to take the similarities between Matthew 21:16-20 and Luke 21:20-24? As far as saying that Jesus said the same things that He said on His way to Jerusalem again when He was on the Mount of Olives?

I know you will, because despite there not being sufficient evidence in the above records that He did say the same things twice, you have already asserted before that He did repeat the above things, and you have asserted this rather than admit that the reason why the synoptic gospels are called "synoptic" is not because they all have the times and days when certain things took place and when certain things were said the same, but because they have the actual things that took place and the actual things that were said the same.

So your entire argument about the similarities between what Luke said about the wrath of God in Luke 21:20-24 and the great tribulation in Matthew 24:16-20 falls flat on the above fact about biblical scripture and the synoptic gospels alone.

But there is more that torpedoes that line of thinking you have. I'll come to it. But let's concentrate on the context of Jesus reference to "great tribulation" in Matthew 24 compared to the context of "wrath upon this people" in Luke 21:20-24.

So let's get insignificant arguments our of the way, so that we can concentrate on the context of Jesus' reference in Matthew 24 to the tribulation of the saints at the end of the Age and to great tribulation vs the wrath of God coming upon Jerusalem.

 

[marks]

Your response is betraying your anger

There is no need to project some assumed emotionalism. I quoted verbatim from the King James version of the Bible, which is my habit to do so.

Much love!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to her, how often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you would not!

Behold, your house is left to you desolate. For I say to you, You shall not see Me from now on until you say, "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord."

* It was two days before His crucifixion, according to the chronology of the text in Matthew's gospel.

"Now as Jesus was going out of the temple courts and walking away, his disciples came to show him the temple buildings. And he said to them, "Do you see all these things? I tell you the truth, not one stone will be left on another. All will be torn down!" (Matthew 23:37-24:2).

--- Every day Jesus was teaching in the temple courts,
but at night he went and stayed on the Mount of Olives. --- Luke 21:37

--- As he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, his disciples came to him privately and said, "Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"

The first thing Jesus then began to speak and warn about in response to the above question, was the tribulation and persecution that the living stones of the New Testament Temple will experience:

View attachment 46080
View attachment 46081
View attachment 46082

View attachment 46083



So let's get insignificant arguments our of the way, so that we can concentrate on the context of Jesus' reference in Matthew 24 to the tribulation of the saints at the end of the Age and to great tribulation vs the wrath of God coming upon Jerusalem.

You need to learn to communicate more clearly. I have no idea of what your point is in this post.

Also, I asked you what your understanding is of the first question the disciples asked Jesus as recorded in Matthew 24:3 (also Mark 13:2 and Luke 21:7). What were they asking Him about with that question?

 

[marks]

I'm not deriding you at all.

Actually, I wasn't referring to myself. You did the broad brush thing.

"Ignorance is bliss among the saints."

It's not interesting, nor is it fruitful, to speak in these kinds of ways.

Much love, and God bless you!

 

[Zao is life]

The context is the same. There is no basis for thinking that those are not parallel passages. Jesus did not say the exact same things twice during the Olivet Discourse. Why would He do that? That makes no sense.

The context of God's wrath coming upon Jerusalem and the great distress being experienced by the inhabitants of Judea as a result is not the same as the context of the tribulation of the disciples at the end of the Age which Jesus introduces in Matthew 24:9 and continues speaking about when He combines it with the rest of what He is saying about the same subject with the word THEREFORE ..

You want it to be that way. But common English does not even permit it.

 

[Zao is life]

You need to learn to communicate more clearly. I have no idea of what your point is in this post.

Also, I asked you what your understanding is of the first question the disciples asked Jesus as recorded in Matthew 24:3 (also Mark 13:2 and Luke 21:7). What were they asking Him about with that question?

You need to communicate more effectively because so far you have compared apples with oranges and called them all apples.

All I'm doing is giving you biblical evidence that they are not all apples.

 

[Zao is life]

Actually, I wasn't referring to myself. You did the broad brush thing.

"Ignorance is bliss among the saints."

It's not interesting, nor is it fruitful, to speak in these kinds of ways.

Much love, and God bless you!

It's necessary when the saints try to hide words in quotes they give when the words are both pertinent to the topic AND show what the saint is saying about it, to be false.

You started with asking me a leading question that you knew the answer to. Instead of just quoting from scripture and saying what you believe, you started by asking a leading question in order to attempt to steer the answer to where you wanted it to go.

Underhanded in God's book, "polemic" in man's book.

What Jeremiah was saying in Jeremiah 31:31-25 had nothing to do with the 10 tribes of Israel ceasing to be a nation before God in 722 BC because THAT did not affect the Jews.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The context of God's wrath coming upon Jerusalem and the great distress being experienced by the inhabitants of Judea as a result is not the same as the context of the tribulation of the disciples at the end of the Age which Jesus introduces in Matthew 24:9 and continues speaking about when He combines it with the rest of what He is saying about the same subject with the word THEREFORE ..

I never said that the context of those two things are the same. Obviously, persecution of believers and God's wrath are two entirely different things. I disagree that Jesus was still talking about the persecution of believers starting in verse 15. He was asked two different questions and answered both. And He was not obligated to answer them in any certain order or any certain way.

Jesus was asked two questions. One of them related to when the temple buildings would be destroyed. Where do you believe His answer is recorded in Matthew 24? I believe He answered it in Matthew 24:15-21. Where else?

You want it to be that way. But common English does not even permit it.

You interpret scripture using "common English" even though it wasn't even written in English? Is spiritual discernment not required in your approach to interpreting scripture?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You need to communicate more effectively because so far you have compared apples with oranges and called them all apples.

All I'm doing is giving you biblical evidence that they are not all apples.

And how are you doing that? I don't see it. You don't realize how hard you are to follow. Can you try to communicate more straightforwardly? And can you try to have enough respect to answer my questions first before I answer yours? And I will do the same.

 

[marks]

the saints try to hide words

Assuming motivations in others generally doesn't lead to understanding. As you've been showing a clear pattern for this, no need to continue.

 

[Zao is life]

You interpret scripture using "common English" even though it wasn't even written in English? Is spiritual discernment not required in your approach to interpreting scripture?

The Greek words it's translated from mean exactly the same. THEREFORE is a correct translation of the Greek and so is tribulation AND so are the words AND BUT FOR which join the entire passage into one and keep Jesus talking about THE SAME tribulation He began speaking of in Matthew 24:9.

 

[Zao is life]

And how are you doing that? I don't see it. You don't realize how hard you are to follow. Can you try to communicate more straightforwardly? And can you try to have enough respect to answer my questions first before I answer yours? And I will do the same.

We've been down this road before regarding your denial that Jesus and the scripture means what He said and what it says. So Let's stop here.

Jesus' mention of great tribulation in Matthew 24 had EVERYTHING to do with the tribulation of His disciples that He began to speak of in Matthew 24:9 and NOTHING to do with the wrath of God that was to come upon Jerusalem which as Luke records Jesus obviously ALSO spoke about on the same day.

Jesus answered ALL the questions as recorded in Matthew, Mark and Luke - and Mark and Luke do not record exactly the same question either. In Matthew 24 Jesus began and finished by answering them the question of what the sign would be of His coming and of the end of the Age and the context, grammar (correctly translated from the Greek) and uninterrupted flow ALL show Jesus saying that at the end of the Age HIS SAINTS will experience great tribulation such as has not been since the beginning of the world to that time, nor ever will be again.

I will not take it away from Jesus just because you and millions of other saints across time have sought to take it away from Him and put a reference into His mouth to something He was not referring to in Matthew 24:9-31 (i.e He was not referring to the destruction of Jerusalem and wrath of God that was experienced as great distress by the inhabitants of Judea at the time that Luke records Him having ALSO spoken about).

Discussion over. You got into it with me. I did not answer any of your posts first. So don't blame me. You know where we will go with this discussion - the same place we've been 100 times before so don't ask me why you went there.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The Greek words it's translated from mean exactly the same. THEREFORE is a correct translation of the Greek and so is tribulation AND so are the words AND BUT FOR which join the entire passage into one and keep Jesus talking about THE SAME tribulation He began speaking of in Matthew 24:9.

Matthew 24:15 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:)

Where are you seeing the words "and", "but" or "for" at the beginning of this verse?

In verse 14 Jesus completes one train of thought as part of His answer relating to the end of the age. That is what "the end" He references in verses 13 and 14 refer to - the end of the age. So, what He talked about up to verse 14 leads up to the end of the age. Then He transitions to talking about things related to their first question regarding when the temple buildings would be destroyed. Do you deny that His answer to that question is found anywhere in Matthew 24?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

We've been down this road before regarding your denial that Jesus and the scripture means what He said and what it says. So Let's stop here.

If you are going to make ridiculous claims that I'm denying that Jesus meant what He said then we're done. Are you going to continue doing that or not? There's no need to make this personal by acting as if I am purposely denying what Jesus said. I NEVER deny what He said. I might interpret it differently than you, but you're making it as if I know what He meant but I'm denying it. I would NEVER do that. So, don't go there.

Jesus' mention of great tribulation in Matthew 24 had EVERYTHING to do with the tribulation of His disciples that He began to speak of in Matthew 24:9 and NOTHING to do with the wrath of God that was to come upon Jerusalem which as Luke records Jesus obviously ALSO spoke about on the same day.

Jesus answered ALL the questions as recorded in Matthew, Mark and Luke - and Mark and Luke do not record exactly the same question either. In Matthew 24 Jesus began and finished by answering them the question of what the sign would be of His coming and of the end of the Age and the context, grammar (correctly translated from the Greek) and uninterrupted flow ALL show Jesus saying that at the end of the Age HIS SAINTS will experience great tribulation such as has not been since the beginning of the world to that time, nor ever will be again.

I will not take it away from Jesus just because you and millions of other saints across time have sought to take it away from Him and put a reference into His mouth to something He was not referring to in Matthew 24:9-31 (i.e He was not referring to the destruction of Jerusalem and wrath of God that was experienced as great distress by the inhabitants of Judea at the time that Luke records Him having ALSO spoken about).

Discussion over. You got into it with me. I did not answer your post. So don't blame me. You know where we will go with this discussion - the same place we've been 100 times before so don't ask me why you went there.

Are you confusing me with someone else? I don't recall ever talking to you about this before today. When have we ever talked about this before?

Edit: I think I'm remembering now who you are. Did you have a different username before? Or maybe we had discussions on a different forum where you have a different username?

 

[Randy Kluth]

It astounds me how though nowhere in any text where the words 'great tribulation' are mentioned by Jesus is the context of the text it's found in the 'wrath of God upon the Jews', you can continue to ignore the fact.​

Luke 21.20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

Is that plain enough? The words "great distress" are used in conjunction with Jesus' mention of "wrath against the Jews." The term "great distress" is used interchangeably with "great tribulation."

It is the author's discretion as to what synonym to use to express accurately what Jesus meant. If in one context Jesus is translated as saying "great distress," and elsewhere, in the same context, the author uses a different synonym "great tribulation," then we know that we are speaking of the same Discourse and that "great distress" and "great tribulation" are synonymous terms.

Matt 24.20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great distress [thlipsis megale], unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.

Mark 13.18 Pray that this will not take place in winter, 19 because those will be days of distress [thlipsis] unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again.

Luke 21.23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress [ananke megale--great anarchy/need] in the land and wrath against this people.

Though the context of the text in the three places in the New Testament where the words 'megas thlipsis' (great tribulation) are found is Jesus speaking of the tribulation of His disciples or John seeing a vision of the tribulation of the saints, yet you ignore this and continue to falsely claim - as though you cannot read English - that Jesus identified the Great Tribulation as God's wrath directed against the Jewish people.​

All 3 passages are parallel passages. They are all found in exactly the same place in the Discourse, and so the various authors are describing the same words of Jesus using different synonyms. Being synonyms they are not expressing different concepts, but instead the *same thing.* "Great distress," "days of distress," "great distress/need" are all saying the *exact same thing!!

If you find that one term applies only to the suffering of Christians and another term applies only to the suffering of Jewish unbelievers, they would *not* be found in the same sentence being translated in 3 different places as the *same sentence!*

No, it is not my lack of grammatical skills at work here! You seem bound and determined to find a way to insert your Futurist definition of the "Great Tribulation."

I don't think it would be useful to continue....

 

[Zao is life]

I've had enough of this kind of talk, thanks but no thanks. I think people should feel free to agree or disagree, support or refute, whatever. But I'm not the topic, and you don't know me.

Derision for others isn't a good look.

Much love!

My apologies because I realized afterwards that I obviously jumped to the conclusion that you were making a statement using the word "ironclad" because you wanted to get into a debate that was going to push a certain theological viewpoint about that scripture which I believe is false. I should not have jumped to that conclusion.

 

[marks]

My apologies because I realized afterwards that I obviously jumped to the conclusion that you were making a statement using the word "ironclad" because you wanted to get into a debate that was going to push a certain theological viewpoint about that scripture which I believe is false. I should not have jumped to that conclusion.

I called it "ironclad" because of the explicit language used. I believe what God has promised is that there will at the very least remain a remnent, which I see taught in many Scriptures. The nation will continue, the people will continue, and when Jesus comes, they will all be saved, all who remain, that remnent.

To be sure I am here to discuss the Scriptures, their meaning, and application to our lives. I ask you to reconsider the "you" statements, where you've discussed me, or others, that is, your opinions of your perceptions of someone, along with whatever mental bias that may or may not exist (a common thing), to makes statements about what others are, or are doing, or want, or like that. You are ignoring . . . you just want to . . . I'm sure you will have the right idea here.

These things take away from instead of adding to the discussion, and I hope you will receive this with wisdom.

Much love!

 

[Zao is life]

I called it "ironclad" because of the explicit language used. I believe what God has promised is that there will at the very least remain a remnent, which I see taught in many Scriptures. The nation will continue, the people will continue, and when Jesus comes, they will all be saved, all who remain, that remnent.

To be sure I am here to discuss the Scriptures, their meaning, and application to our lives. I ask you to reconsider the "you" statements, where you've discussed me, or others, that is, your opinions of your perceptions of someone, along with whatever mental bias that may or may not exist (a common thing), to makes statements about what others are, or are doing, or want, or like that. You are ignoring . . . you just want to . . . I'm sure you will have the right idea here.

These things take away from instead of adding to the discussion, and I hope you will receive this with wisdom.

Much love!

Yes, you are right and I apologize again. "You are ignoring" and "you just want to" was ascribing a motive that you plainly did not have and I was wrong to assume that motive, and to say what I said.

I agree with what you say above, regarding the remnant and the continuation of the election in and because of that same remnant. I always think about the millions over the last 2,000 years who "wandered in the wilderness in unbelief" and "perished in that wilderness, and did not enter the promised land". IMO they all count/ed to God, as do all those (Jews) who do not believe and are still alive today still count to God, because they are yet beloved of God for the sake of the fathers. My heart is always very saddened by the thought of all those who perished in the wilderness, so I understand what Paul was grieving about in his opening statement in Romans 9.

We have glimpses in the prophets and in biblical typology that "the party's not over till the lady sings", as they say, but what about all those who perished?​