Why are some interpreters not being honest with the text involving Daniel 9:27?

[Spiritual Israelite]

In light of Luke 17, I beg to differ. Nothing recorded in Luke 17 gives the impression fleeing is meaning in the literal sense involving fleeing from one location to another. Therefore, how can the same things recorded in Luke 17 that are also recorded in Matthew 24, not mean in the literal sense in Luke 17 but mean in the literal sense in Matthew 24? Clearly, Luke 17 is key here, thus proving that what Luke 21:20 is involving, is not what Matthew 24:15 is involving.

You took quite a leap in logic here. How exactly does Luke 17 prove that Luke 21:20 is not involving what Matthew 24:15 is involving? Why do you only use Luke 17 to understand Matthew 24:15 and not Luke 21:20-24? That comes across as a very biased approach to Matthew 24. All 3 (Luke 17, Luke 21 and Matthew 24) should be looked at carefully and compared along with Mark 13 in order to get the full picture of what Jesus talked about in the Olivet Discourse. Not that I'm saying Luke 17 is part of the Olivet Discourse, but Jesus obviously talked about similar things there as what He did in the Olivet Discourse.

Anyway, what I think you miss when looking at the overall big picture of the Olivet Discourse is the time period that Luke called "the times of the Gentiles". What is your understanding of "the times of the Gentiles"? What time period do you think that refers to? Where do you think that time period fits in Matthew 24 or Mark 13?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

They are not "parallel verses". Your hermeneutics is faulty and lacks credibility. Below is a comparison of Luke's gospel with Matthew's:

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

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).

Luke 11 (before arriving in Jerusalem)



The passages in Luke are talking about AD 70 as well as about the end of the Age and the return of Christ. So is the passage in Matthew 23:13 - Matthew 24:15-31, but according to Luke's record, Jesus said all the above things while journeying to Jerusalem, whereas according to Matthew's record, Jesus said all the above things while in the temple, and while seated on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem.

It's logical to say that "As in the days of Noah" and "As in the days of Lot" pertains to the suddenness of the calamities coming upon unbelievers.

"Let him on the housetop not come down to take anything out of his house; nor let him in the field turn back to take his clothes." pertains to the urgency of the disciples of Jesus getting themselves as far away from the trouble as they can, as fast as they can.

"Remember Lot's wife." pertains to the disciples of Jesus not looking back or longing for what has been left behind.

"Woe to those who are with child, and to those who give suck in those days! But pray that YOUR flight is not in the winter, nor on the sabbath day." pertains to the intensity of the tribulation as it would be experienced by the disciples (since Jesus was speaking to His disciples).

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

In the record contained in all three of the synoptic gospels, instead of speaking to them about the temple in Jerusalem again, the first thing Jesus began to speak and warn about after sitting down on the Mount of Olives (and in response to the disciples' question), was:-

(i) Birth-pain signs of the end of the Age; and
(ii) The tribulation and persecution that the living stones of the New Testament Temple would experience at the end of the Age:-

Matthew 24
14 "This gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole inhabited earth as a testimony to all the nations, and at that time the end will come. 9 At that time they will hand you over to tribulation and will kill you. You will be hated by all the nations because of my name. 10 At that time many will stumble and fall away, and they will betray one another and hate one another. 11 And many false prophets will appear and deceive many, 12 and because lawlessness will increase so much, the love of many will grow cold.

13 But the person who endures to the end will be saved.

THEREFORE.. "

"Therefore" is a correct translation of the Greek oun.

" THEREFORE.. when you see the abomination of desolation - spoken about by Daniel the prophet - standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), at that time those in Judea must flee to the mountains .."

FAULTY HERMENEUTICS IS NOT SOUND HERMENEUTICS

This is what Luke records about the armies gathering against Jerusalem:

Luke: 21:23
"But woe to those who are with child, and to those suckling in those days! For there shall be great distress [anánkē] in the land and wrath [orgḗ] on this people." (Luke 21:23).

Whereas Luke's gospel pertains to the distress experienced by all who would be in the land at the time that God's wrath was to come upon Jerusalem,

Matthew's gospel pertains to the intensity of a period of tribulation as it would be experienced by the disciples, at a time when there would be:

"great tribulation such as has not been since the beginning of the world to this time; no, nor ever shall be" (to such an extent that)
​

"unless those days should be shortened, no flesh would be saved. But for the elect's sake, those days shall be shortened." (Matthew 24:21-22).

So Matthew recorded Jesus saying:

"Woe to those who are with child, and to those who give suck in those days! But pray that YOUR (the disciples') flight is not in the winter, nor on the sabbath day." (Matthew 24:19-20).

Linking what Luke records Jesus saying about the the wrath of God that was to come upon Jerusalem (Luke 21:23) to what Matthew records Jesus saying about the abomination of desolation - spoken about by Daniel the prophet - standing in the holy place is not sound hermeneutics, but willfully interpreting scripture to align it with a personally chosen interpretation.

When Jesus spoke of the days of Noah and of Lot etc, He was using historic events as biblical types of things to come.

As we saw in the above comparison between Luke's and Matthew's records about Jesus' location when He spoke about the end of the Age and the time of His return using the above types, the two gospels frequently do not agree either on when Jesus said the above things, or on where He was located when He said them.

Therefore sound biblical hermeneutics requires that we keep in mind that Matthew's gospel was written by Matthew (not by Luke).

Matthew chose the word --".. therefore .."-- to link Matthew's record about what Jesus had just said about the tribulation of the disciples at the end of the aeon | age (Matthew 24:9-14) to what follows the word "therefore" in the same text and context.

Therefore there's no logical reason why we should interpret Matthew's record of what Jesus said on the Mount of Olives about tribulation, great tribulation and the abomination of desolation in the holy place in accordance with what Luke recorded Jesus saying on the Mount of Olives about the wrath of God that was to come upon Jerusalem.
​

The verses are not parallel, except in your own totally illogical and willful departure from sound hermeneutics.

You try to come across as authoritative here as if you actually know what you're talking about, but your arguments are far less than convincing.

Give me one good reason that Luke recorded Jesus's answer to both of the disciples questions that they asked before He gave His Olivet Discourse, but Matthew and Mark (supposedly) did not.

In other words, why would Matthew and Mark have not thought it important to record His answer to the disciples' first question? Did they get together with Luke and say "Hey, how about we just let you record the answer Jesus gave to the disciples' first question as well as recording His answer to the second question and we'll just record His answer to the second question only. Deal?".

 

[Zao is life]

You try to come across as authoritative here as if you actually know what you're talking about, but your arguments are far less than convincing.

Give me one good reason that Luke recorded Jesus's answer to both of the disciples questions that they asked before He gave His Olivet Discourse, but Matthew and Mark (supposedly) did not.

In other words, why would Matthew and Mark have not thought it important to record His answer to the disciples' first question? Did they get together with Luke and say "Hey, how about we just let you record the answer Jesus gave to the disciples' first question as well as recording His answer to the second question and we'll just record His answer to the second question only. Deal?".

You try to come across as authoritative here as if you actually know what you're talking about, but the things you say, the facts you choose to ignore and the context you add where there is no such context, and now your above question, are far less convincing.

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

"Behold, your house is left to you desolate." (Matthew 23:38) (Jesus was in the temple when He said this, according to Matthew's record).

"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 24:1-2).

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

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

"And as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the aeon? (Matthew 24:3)

"When you see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that its destruction has come." (Luke 21:20).​

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

You insist that Matthew recorded Jesus answering the question that Luke recorded:

"Teacher, but when shall these things be? And what shall be the sign when these things are about to take place?" Luke 21:7

"What shall be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the aeon?" (Matthew 24:3) is not the same as, "What shall be the sign when these things are about to take place?" (Luke 21:7) - unless you are a Preterist or Partial Preterist.

In all three synoptic gospels, the very first thing Jesus began to tell them about was the tribulation and persecution that the living stones of the New Testament temple were going to experience at the end of the Age leading up to His coming in glory. Luke's record is the only record that included a sign that the destruction of Jerusalem was about to take place.

You can continue in your faulty hermeneutics to have Matthew recording Jesus answering the question that Luke recorded (but that Matthew did not record) until Jesus comes back. Matthew's record still remains in the context of the tribulation of the disciples that Matthew records Jesus beginning to talk about in verses 9-14, immediately before He said,
​

"THEREFORE, when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet .."

And in your faulty hermeneutics you can have Matthew's record above talking about Jerusalem being compassed with armies, and it being the sign that its destruction has come, until Jesus comes back, it still will never make your hermeneutics anything less than faulty

- especially since Luke was not an eyewitness and his accounts of when Jesus spoke about the end of the Age as well as what His location was when He said the very things Matthew records Him saying in the temple and on the Mount of Olives, do not always agree (see Post #1,017).

This answers your question. And though you may not see your lack of logic and sound hermenuetics in your arguments about this, bear in mind that MANY do - except (obviously) those who choose to hold onto their own interpretations of this passage as you do, whether it be so as to ensure it does not torpedo their Preterism or Partial Preterism, or whatever other motive you and they have for continuing to do so - because all your (and their) arguments have proved only that you have come up with your interpretation of Matthew 24 through conjecture, and nothing else.​

 

[Zao is life]

@Davidpt There are millions of people in the world who speak English, and even more who can speak English.

The vast majority of them understand that the English word therefore in Matthew 24:15 links what Jesus was saying about the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus at the end of the Age (Matthew 24:9-14) to the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet.

Out of the billions of people in the world who either speak English or can speak English, only a very small minority of them (Preterists, Partial Preterists and Christians such as @Spiritual Israelite and @covenantee and those who agree with their interpretation of this passage),

would claim that the English word therefore (from the Greek oun, which means the same thing) does not mean what it says in Matthew 24:15, in order to try and prove that what Matthew recorded Jesus saying to the disciples about their coming tribulation at end end of the Age leading up to His coming in glory, has nothing to do with the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet.

As for the vast majority of the people on planet earth who either speak English or can speak English, they would find it laughable when hearing the sheer conjecture of linking what Luke records Jesus saying about the wrath of God that was to come upon Jerusalem to what Matthew records Jesus saying about the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus at the end of the Age leading to His return in glory, and the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel in the holy place,

and in the process needing to deny that the English word therefore in Matthew 24:15 links Matthew 24:9-14 to Matthew 24:15-22, and adding context that isn't actually there.

Sadly, when the vast majority of people on planet earth who either speak English or can speak English find the arguments laughable that are put forward by this group of Christians (as to why the English word "therefore" in Matthew 24:15 does not link what Jesus said about the tribulation of the disciples at the end of the Age to the abomination of desolation) (because it's so obvious that all their arguments are derived from sheer conjecture),

and especially when they try to come across as authoritative about what they say,

then by extension the vast majority of those on planet earth who either speak English or can speak English laugh at us too, because we are all Christians

Well so be it. Our brothers cause unbelievers to laugh at us by being ridiculous when it comes to the way they choose to change the meaning of English and Greek words and use sheer conjecture to suit their own interpretations of passages.​

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

@Davidpt There are millions of people in the world who speak English, and even more who can speak English.

Out of the billions of people in the world who either speak English or can speak English, only a very small minority of them (Preterists, Partial Preterists and Christians such as @Spiritual Israelite and @covenantee and those who agree with their interpretation of this passage),
​

would claim that the English word therefore (from the Greek oun, which means the same thing) does not mean what it says in Matthew 24:15, in order to try and prove that what Matthew recorded Jesus saying to the disciples about their coming tribulation at end end of the Age leading up to His coming in glory, has nothing to do with the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet.

Why don't you stop being lazy and actually find out how I interpret that verse first before declaring that I'm supposedly ignoring the word "therefore"? All you had to do was ask instead of making false assumptions.

It's undeniable that Jesus was asked two questions (some say 3) in the Olivet Discourse. What you are not recognizing is that Jesus went back and forth in time when answering the questions. Similar to how it is in the book of Revelation, Jesus felt no obligation to talk about everything in chronological order from beginning to end.

He started out by talking about things that would happen leading up to "the end", which refers to "the end of the age" that He was asked about.

What you are not recognizing is that Jesus transitioned to answering the first question about the destruction of the temple buildings starting in verse 15. So, His use of the word "therefore" does indeed refer back to something He had previously said, so I do not ignore that word. But, it's not what He said immediately prior to that. It's the last thing He said before the disciples asked their questions which was that the temple buildings they were drawing His attention to would be destroyed. So, He was telling them, in light of Him having told them that the temple buildings would be destroyed, how they would recognize when it was about to happen.

Luke, who was writing to Gentiles who would not have been familiar with Daniel's prophecy about the abomination of desolation, spelled it out to them by putting it like this in Luke 21:20: "When you shall see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then you will know its desolation is near".

So, it's very clear that Luke 21:20-24 is a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20 despite your attempts to say otherwise.

Give me one good reason why Luke would have included Jesus's answers to both questions, but Matthew and Mark would not. I can't think of any reason for that.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You try to come across as authoritative here as if you actually know what you're talking about, but the things you say, the facts you choose to ignore and the context you add where there is no such context, and now your above question, are far less convincing.

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

"Behold, your house is left to you desolate." (Matthew 23:38) (Jesus was in the temple when He said this, according to Matthew's record).

"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 24:1-2).

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

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

"And as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the aeon? (Matthew 24:3)

"When you see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that its destruction has come." (Luke 21:20).​

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

You insist that Matthew recorded Jesus answering the question that Luke recorded:

"Teacher, but when shall these things be? And what shall be the sign when these things are about to take place?" Luke 21:7

"What shall be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the aeon?" (Matthew 24:3) is not the same as, "What shall be the sign when these things are about to take place?" (Luke 21:7) - unless you are a Preterist or Partial Preterist.​

How many Olivet Discourses do you think there were? There was only one. Do you understand that Matthew was writing to a different audience (Jews) than Luke was (Gentiles)? What do you think, that the disciples asked Jesus 4 different questions in the Olivet Discourse? You're not making any sense here. You're not recognizing that He was only asked 2 questions and Matthew recorded them differently than Luke did. Matthew decided to word the questions in a way that would make it clear that Jesus was asked about two entirely different things, which is not clear in the questions as Luke recorded them.

And are you forgetting that Mark also recorded an account of the Olivet Discourse?

Mark 13:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, 4 Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?

Can you see here that Mark recorded the questions very similar to how Luke did? Yet, Mark 13:14-20 says the same thing as Matthew 24:15-22. So, to be consistent with what you're saying about Luke 21:20-24 being related to what happened in 70 AD, you would need to conclude that Mark 13:14-20 is also about 70 AD and not parallel to Matthew 24:15-22. But, you don't claim that, do you. Your lack of consistency shows your doctrinal bias. Apart from doctrinal bias, it is obvious that Matthew 24:15-22, Mark 13:14-20 and Luke 21:20-24a are parallel passages.

In all three synoptic gospels, the very first thing Jesus began to tell them about was the tribulation and persecution that the living stones of the New Testament temple were going to experience at the end of the Age leading up to His coming in glory. Luke's record is the only record that included a sign that the destruction of Jerusalem was about to take place.

You come to that conclusion because the question says "What shall be the sign when these things are about to take place?", yet Mark records the question very similarly as "and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?". So, Luke and Mark recorded the second question basically the same way, which means your claim that "Luke's record is the only record that included a sign that the destruction of Jerusalem was about to take place." is clearly false. You're coveniently not applying the same reasoning to Mark 13 that you're applying to Luke 21. You even mentioned all 3 accounts specifically, so I don't know how you could have missed what I'm telling you now unless you didn't bother actually looking at Mark 13.

 

[Davidpt]

@Davidpt There are millions of people in the world who speak English, and even more who can speak English.

The vast majority of them understand that the English word therefore in Matthew 24:15 links what Jesus was saying about the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus at the end of the Age (Matthew 24:9-14) to the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet.

Out of the billions of people in the world who either speak English or can speak English, only a very small minority of them (Preterists, Partial Preterists and Christians such as @Spiritual Israelite and @covenantee and those who agree with their interpretation of this passage),

would claim that the English word therefore (from the Greek oun, which means the same thing) does not mean what it says in Matthew 24:15, in order to try and prove that what Matthew recorded Jesus saying to the disciples about their coming tribulation at end end of the Age leading up to His coming in glory, has nothing to do with the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet.

As for the vast majority of the people on planet earth who either speak English or can speak English, they would find it laughable when hearing the sheer conjecture of linking what Luke records Jesus saying about the wrath of God that was to come upon Jerusalem to what Matthew records Jesus saying about the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus at the end of the Age leading to His return in glory, and the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel in the holy place,

and in the process needing to deny that the English word therefore in Matthew 24:15 links Matthew 24:9-14 to Matthew 24:15-22, and adding context that isn't actually there.

Sadly, when the vast majority of people on planet earth who either speak English or can speak English find the arguments laughable that are put forward by this group of Christians (as to why the English word "therefore" in Matthew 24:15 does not link what Jesus said about the tribulation of the disciples at the end of the Age to the abomination of desolation) (because it's so obvious that all their arguments are derived from sheer conjecture),

and especially when they try to come across as authoritative about what they say,

then by extension the vast majority of those on planet earth who either speak English or can speak English laugh at us too, because we are all Christians

Well so be it. Our brothers cause unbelievers to laugh at us by being ridiculous when it comes to the way they choose to change the meaning of English and Greek words and use sheer conjecture to suit their own interpretations of passages.​

These are great points. I seem to recall you making these same points on that other board you and I are members of.

And look what verse 9 says---and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. How can someone apply that to the first century before the gospel has managed to spread worldwide first? IOW, how can the first century prior to 70 AD be involving all nations at that point? How can all nations not include the USA, for example? In what way was the USA , for example, relevent in the first century leading up to 70 AD?

How can this in verse 15--- When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, not be applicable to this in verse 9---and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.

Or this instead. How can this in verse 9---and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake, be applicable to this in verse 15---When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation---if that is meaning the first century leading up to 70 AD?

 

[Zao is life]

How many Olivet Discourses do you think there were? There was only one. Do you understand that Matthew was writing to a different audience (Jews) than Luke was (Gentiles)? What do you think, that the disciples asked Jesus 4 different questions in the Olivet Discourse? You're not making any sense here. You're not recognizing that He was only asked 2 questions and Matthew recorded them differently than Luke did. Matthew decided to word the questions in a way that would make it clear that Jesus was asked about two entirely different things, which is not clear in the questions as Luke recorded them.

And are you forgetting that Mark also recorded an account of the Olivet Discourse?

Mark 13:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, 4 Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?

Can you see here that Mark recorded the questions very similar to how Luke did? Yet, Mark 13:14-20 says the same thing as Matthew 24:15-22. So, to be consistent with what you're saying about Luke 21:20-24 being related to what happened in 70 AD, you would need to conclude that Mark 13:14-20 is also about 70 AD and not parallel to Matthew 24:15-22. But, you don't claim that, do you. Your lack of consistency shows your doctrinal bias. Apart from doctrinal bias, it is obvious that Matthew 24:15-22, Mark 13:14-20 and Luke 21:20-24a are parallel passages.


You come to that conclusion because the question says "What shall be the sign when these things are about to take place?", yet Mark records the question very similarly as "and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?". So, Luke and Mark recorded the second question basically the same way, which means your claim that "Luke's record is the only record that included a sign that the destruction of Jerusalem was about to take place." is clearly false. You're coveniently not applying the same reasoning to Mark 13 that you're applying to Luke 21. You even mentioned all 3 accounts specifically, so I don't know how you could have missed what I'm telling you now unless you didn't bother actually looking at Mark 13.

Your arguments show your ignorance regarding the synpotic gospels.

One Olivet Discourse, many witnesses, three people recording what Jesus spoke about - one an eyewitness (Matthew), one writing what Peter was telling him (Mark), and one who was not an eyewitness writing down what who knows how many eyewitnesses said (Luke).

Every court of law everywhere in the world understands that one eyewitness to an event or a series of events will relate more details than another, and at times they will disagree slightly on details, such as where and when this or that occurred, or was said (such as we find between Luke and Matthew's accounts of what Jesus said about the end of the Age and His coming in His glory).

There is no way that everything found in Luke is also going to be found in Matthew and Mark, and vice versa.

Quote from What are the Synoptic Gospels? | GotQuestions.org

Nearly 90 percent of Mark’s content is found in Matthew, and about 50 percent of Mark appears in Luke. All of the parables of Christ are found in the Synoptics (the Gospel of John contains no parables).

There are differences, too. Matthew and Luke are both considerably longer than Mark.

The difficulty in explaining the similarities and differences among the Synoptic Gospels is referred to as the Synoptic Problem in the world of biblical scholarship. In the final analysis, the Synoptic “Problem” is not much of a problem at all—God inspired three Gospel writers to record the events surrounding the same Person during the same part of His life in the same locations, yet with slightly different emphases aimed at different readers. Unquote

Luke was not an eyewitness. His record is the record of eyewitnesses whose witness he wrote down. There is no reason why everything that Luke wrote about what Jesus said after He mentioned the coming destruction of the temple, had to be recorded by Matthew and Mark also. That's not the way eyewitness accounts work, and it's not a phenomena that exists in the synoptic gospels.

Luke does not even mention that Jesus was on the Mount of Olives when He spoke about anything Luke records in Luke 21.

You will deny this, but you just make it more and more plain by your questions that you are trying to find reasons for your conjecture, instead of letting Matthew and Mark each speak for themselves regarding what they recorded about Jesus' words on the Mount of Olives that day, instead of through sheer conjecture asserting that Matthew and Mark both also recorded what Luke recorded about Jesus saying regarding the sign that the wrath of God was about to come upon Jerusalem, as if what Matthew and Mark wrote was a commentary on what Luke recorded.

 

[Davidpt]

Give me one good reason why Luke would have included Jesus's answers to both questions, but Matthew and Mark would not. I can't think of any reason for that.

I can. For one the timeframe pertaining to Matthew 24:15-21 is meaning during the times of the Gentiles, and that Luke 21 is applying that after the destruction of the city and temple. Therefore, Matthew 24:15-21 is not meaning before the city and the 2nd temple was destroyed, it is meaning after. After all, does not the following prove that the times of the Gentiles are not involving prior to the destruction of the city and 2nd temple, but is meaning after that?

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 same 42 months is meaning the same 42 months that the beast reigns once it emerges from the pit, is it not? Since this 42 months involve, not only a beast but also a false prophet, isn't it logical that the false prophet is likely human, even if meaning more than one person? In order to be cast alive into the LOF when Christ returns, and that if the false prophet is human, we then can't insist that the 42 months span hundreds or thousands of years since no human could possibly remain alive that amount of time.

Therefore, if the false prophet is human, we are undeniably dealing with a short span of time pertaining to this 42 months rather than a long span of time, such as hundreds or thousands of years.

And besides, how does the following make logical sense if they are all not living at the same time during the same era of time?

Revelation 16:2 And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.


Per your view don't you have people worshiping his image throughout the past 2000 years? If yes, what does the text plainly say? Does it not say there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image? How can that be applied to someone who already did this in the past but is long gone and dead at this point? Not to mention, since this also involves a false prophet, and if that false prophet is human, how did he or they manage to still be alive 2000 years later so that he or they can be cast alive into the LOF when Christ returns? After all, you can't divorce the false prophet from any of these events. He or they is just as much a part of this as the beast is, meaning from start to finish.

 

[Zao is life]

These are great points. I seem to recall you making these same points on that other board you and I are members of.

And look what verse 9 says---and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. How can someone apply that to the first century before the gospel has managed to spread worldwide first? IOW, how can the first century prior to 70 AD be involving all nations at that point? How can all nations not include the USA, for example? In what way was the USA , for example, relevent in the first century leading up to 70 AD?

How can this in verse 15--- When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, not be applicable to this in verse 9---and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.

Or this instead. How can this in verse 9---and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake, be applicable to this in verse 15---When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation---if that is meaning the first century leading up to 70 AD?

Yes. Besides that, Preterists and Partial Preterists call the holy city Jerusalem that was destroyed in 70 A.D but the New Testament actually teaches us that the holy city was being attacked even before that when Nero was burning Christians on stakes. That gets ignored by them.

Revelation calls New Jerusalem the holy city 3 times aside from the mention of the holy city in Revelation 11:2 and Preterists and Partial Preterists say Revelation was written before 70 A.D. Yet they call Rome's occupation of Jerusalem of the Jews an abomination of desolation.​

 

[covenantee]

Yes. Besides that, Preterists and Partial Preterists call the holy city Jerusalem that was destroyed in 70 A.D but the New Testament actually teaches us that the holy city was being attacked even before that when Nero was burning Christians on stakes. That gets ignored by them.

Jerusalem was originally destroyed circa 589–587 BC. Seems you ignored that.
It didn't cease being known as the holy city when it was rebuilt.
So why do you think it ceased being the holy city before 70 AD?

Revelation calls New Jerusalem the holy city 3 times aside from the mention of the holy city in Revelation 11:2 and Preterists and Partial Preterists say Revelation was written before 70 A.D. Yet they call Rome's occupation of Jerusalem of the Jews an abomination of desolation.

Jesus called the Roman armies the abomination of desolation.

Whom to believe?

1. You
2. Jesus

Need a hint?

 

[Zao is life]

I can. For one the timeframe pertaining to Matthew 24:15-21 is meaning during the times of the Gentiles, and that Luke 21 is applying that after the destruction of the city and temple. Therefore, Matthew 24:15-21 is not meaning before the city and the 2nd temple was destroyed, it is meaning after.

Indeed.

"At the time of the end of the Age this gospel will have been preached in all the world as a witness to all nations and you all will have become hated of all nations for my name's sake (to such an extent that) you will be delivered up to tribulation and be killed. THEREFORE when you see (this sign) then whomever of you is in Judea must flee to the mountains because the tribulation of those days will be so great that for the elect's sake God will shorten those days - otherwise no flesh will be saved."

It obviously pertains to something that will occur after the wrath of God had come upon Jerusalem and the Jews were led away captive into all nations.​

 

[Zao is life]

Jerusalem was originally destroyed circa 589–587 BC. Seems you ignored that.
It didn't cease being the holy city then.
So why do you think it ceased being the holy city before 70 AD?

Jesus called the Roman armies the abomination of desolation.

Whom to believe?

1. You
2. Jesus

Need a hint?

Jesus did not call the Roman armies "the abomination of desolation" anywhere in scripture.

Whom to believe?

1. You.
2. Jesus

Need a hint

Lots of people would know that Jesus did not call the Roman armies "the abomination of desolation" anywhere in scripture. All of them would know that I returned your childishness, which you posted due to a total lack of having any valid arguments based in fact, so we have now both been childish. Well done ​

 

[covenantee]

These are great points. I seem to recall you making these same points on that other board you and I are members of.

And look what verse 9 says---and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. How can someone apply that to the first century before the gospel has managed to spread worldwide first? IOW, how can the first century prior to 70 AD be involving all nations at that point? How can all nations not include the USA, for example? In what way was the USA , for example, relevent in the first century leading up to 70 AD?

How can this in verse 15--- When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, not be applicable to this in verse 9---and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.

Or this instead. How can this in verse 9---and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake, be applicable to this in verse 15---When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation---if that is meaning the first century leading up to 70 AD?

Some insights by Bro. Woodrow from Scripture and history.

Ralph Woodrow, Great Prophecies of the Bible

PERSECUTION AGAINST THE DISCIPLES

Matthew: "Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.., And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold" (24:9-12).

Mark: "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.., whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak but the Holy Ghost... And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake" (13:9-13).

Luke: "They shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake. And it shall turn to you for a testimony...I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist...and some of you shall they cause to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake" (21:12-17).

The book of Acts gives a complete account of how the disciples were persecuted in the very ways Jesus had predicted. Let us take, for example, Acts 4: "And they laid hands on them [Peter and John], and put them in prison" (verse 3). They were brought before "rulers" (verses 5-7). And it turned into an opportunity to testify. Peter explained that "there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (verse 12). They were given a mouth of wisdom which their adversaries could not gainsay, for the men of the council "marveled" (verse 13). They were then commanded "not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus" (verse 18). As Jesus had said, they were hated for His name's sake.

The same things are seen in Acts 5. Certain authorities "laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in the common prison" (verse 18). Later they were brought "before the council" (verse 27) and told to answer for continuing to teach in the name of Jesus (verse 28). Again they had opportunity to testify (verses 29-32). They were "beaten" (verse 40). As they departed from the "council", they rejoiced "that they were counted worthy to suffer for his name"(verse 41).

Or take Acts 6. There arose certain ones of the "synagogue" that disputed with Stephen. "And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spoke" (verses 9,10). Persecution resulted and he was brought into the "council " and questioned (verse 12). Again there was the opportunity to testify, the words of that testimony being given in Acts 7. Stephen was killed for his stand (verses 54-60). Jesus had said that some of them would be killed.

Notice Acts 8. "There was a great persecution against the church." Christians were put in "prison", but the result was that the word was preached (verses 1-4).

In Acts 16, Paul and Silas were beaten and cast into "prison." But it turned into an opportunity to testify and the Philippian jailor and his family were converted as a result (verses 22-34). In Acts 21, persecution resulted in Paul being beaten, brought before rulers, before whom he testified (Acts 22). In Acts 22:19 we read that Christians were "imprisoned and beat in every Synagogue."

In Acts 24, Paul was brought before Felix, the governor, and testified. He was given a mouth of wisdom which his adversaries could not gainsay—though they obtained an orator to speak against him. Paul's words even made Felix to "tremble." In Acts 25 and 26, Paul was brought before king Agrippa, the chief captains, and the principal men of the city. He was given a mouth of wisdom, for Agrippa said to Paul, "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian" (verse 28).

Jesus said the disciples would be afflicted, beaten, imprisoned; they would be hated for his name's sake and some would be killed; they would be brought before councils, rulers, and kings, for a testimony; they would be given a mouth of wisdom which their adversaries could not gainsay. Surely these things came to pass in those years—unmistakably fulfilled in every detail.

GOSPEL TO BE PREACHED TO THE NATIONS

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then [not until then] shall the end come" (Mt. 24:14). Unless we take this verse clear out of its setting, "the end" in view here is the end or destruction which was to come upon Jerusalem and the temple. This was the question that Jesus was answering in the verses before, and the verses that follow are still speaking about Jerusalem and Judea. Jerusalem would be destroyed, but "first" the gospel would be preached unto all nations (Mk. 13:10).

It was a tremendous prophecy. Picture the scene. Here on the mount of Olives, Jesus was speaking these words to seemingly insignificant men. Who would have supposed that the names of these humble men would become known around the world and that even in our day—almost 2,000 years later—the seeds of truth that they planted would still be producing fruit? Who would have supposed that this unpopular gospel that Christ committed to these men would ever spread beyond that immediate area? Such a vast preaching program unto all nations seemed almost impossible of fulfillment. But it was fulfilled, and in a very real sense the gospel did go to all nations before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A. D..

On the day of Pentecost when the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit, there were present in Jerusalem "devout men, out of every nation under heaven" (Acts 2:5). They heard the gospel preached by Peter and 3,000 were converted that day. Many of these, no doubt, returned to their various countries and preached the gospel.

Later when persecution came against the church, the believers at Jerusalem were scattered and "went every where preaching the word", throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria (Acts 8:1,4). Philip took the message to the city of Samaria with great results (verses 5-8). Later he was directed to a high ranking government official from Ethiopia who was gloriously converted (verses 26-40). It is believed that this man took the message to the continent of Africa and many were converted because of his influential testimony.

Peter took the message to the Gentiles at the house of Cornelius, an event that was a turning point in the missionary activities of the church (Acts 10, 11). The book of Acts gives a sketch of the mighty missionary work that advanced rapidly.

The message spread to Rome. By the time of Nero, the Christians had grown so numerous that they aroused the jealousy of the government. The story of the great fire in Rome in 64 A. D. —for which the Christians were falsely blamed—is well known. In writing to the Christians at Rome, Paul opens his epistle by saying, "Your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world" (Rom. 1:8), and his closing words talk about the gospel as having been "made known to all nations for the obedience of faith" (16:26).

Concerning even far away England, Newton says: "There is absolute certainty that Christianity was planted in this country in the days of the apostles, before the destruction of Jerusalem." Eusebius and also Theodoret inform us that the apostles preached the gospel in all the world and some of them "passed beyond the ocean to the Britannic isles."

By the time Paul wrote his letter to the Colossians, he could say: 'The gospel...is come unto you, as it is in all the world" (Col. 1:6). Likewise, in verse 23, he mentions '"the gospel which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven."

By 70 A. D., the gospel had gone forth to the world for a witness. No longer was God's message to man confined to one nation or race.

 

[covenantee]

Jesus did not call the Roman armies "the abomination of desolation" anywhere in scripture.

Whom to believe?

1. You.
2. Jesus

Need a hint

Lots of people would know that Jesus did not call the Roman armies "the abomination of desolation" anywhere in scripture. All of them would know that I returned your childishness, which you posted due to a total lack of having any valid arguments based in fact, so we have now both been childish. Well done ​

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)

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

Do you think that Matthew and/or Luke were hard of hearing or soft of understanding?

Not a chance.

They weren't dispensational futurists.

 

[Zao is life]

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)

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

Do you think that Matthew and/or Luke were hard of hearing or soft of understanding?

Not a chance.

They weren't dispensational futurists.

You can't read. Luke spoke about the fact that Jesus said that the wrath of God was going come upon Jerusalem and the disciples would know it when they see armies surround Jerusalem.

Matthew spoke about the fact that Jesus said that when the disciples see the abomination of desolation in the holy place, the disciples would know that the end of the Age had come and greatest period of tribulation Christians will ever experience will be upon us, leading to the Lord's return - days which will be shortened for the elect's sake.

And because you conflate the above things through sheer conjecture, you will never ever be able to prove any invention you ever come up with as to how the things which occurred in 70 AD were shortened for anybody's sake, let alone the elect..

 

[covenantee]

You can't read. Luke spoke about the fact that Jesus said that the wrath of God was going come upon Jerusalem and the disciples would know it when they see armies surround Jerusalem.

Matthew spoke about the fact that Jesus said that when the disciples see the abomination of desolation in the holy place, the disciples would know that the end of the Age had come and greatest period of tribulation Christians will ever experience will be upon us, leading to the Lord's return - days which will be shortened for the elect's sake.

And because you conflate the above things through sheer conjecture, you will never ever be able to prove any invention you ever come up with as to how the things which occurred in 70 AD were shortened for anybody's sake, let alone the elect..

You can't understand. Luke provided the interpretive details for identifying and locating the abomination of desolation.

Details which were unmistakably fulfilled by 70 AD.

Not awaiting a delusional dispensational futurized fantasy and fallacy.

The elect refers to the Judaean Christians. If the conflict had not been shortened, it would have eventually reached them even in Pella, to which they had fled in response to Jesus' warnings.

Thankfully, not one of them was a dispensational futurist.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Your arguments show your ignorance regarding the synpotic gospels.

My arguments revealed a fatal flaw in your logic and you won't admit it. You did not apply the same logic you used to determine that the second question in Luke was "a sign that the destruction of Jerusalem was about to take place." to Mark 13:4 as well. That is because of your doctrinal bias. Any objective person can easily see that.

Luke 21:7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?

Mark 13:4 Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?

Somehow, you determine that the sign which indicates "when these things shall come to pass" is a different sign than the one which indicates "when all these things shall be fulfilled". That's doctrinal bias at its worst!

One Olivet Discourse, many witnesses, three people recording what Jesus spoke about - one an eyewitness (Matthew), one writing what Peter was telling him (Mark), and one who was not an eyewitness writing down what who knows how many eyewitnesses said (Luke).

Every court of law everywhere in the world understands that one eyewitness to an event or a series of events will relate more details than another, and at times they will disagree slightly on details, such as where and when this or that occurred, or was said (such as we find between Luke and Matthew's accounts of what Jesus said about the end of the Age and His coming in His glory).

Yeah, no kidding. We all know this. Don't waste time explaining things that everyone here already knows.

There is no way that everything found in Luke is also going to be found in Matthew and Mark, and vice versa.

Obviously. So far, this proves nothing about what you've been claiming regarding Matthew 24:15-21.

Quote from What are the Synoptic Gospels? | GotQuestions.org

Nearly 90 percent of Mark’s content is found in Matthew, and about 50 percent of Mark appears in Luke. All of the parables of Christ are found in the Synoptics (the Gospel of John contains no parables).

There are differences, too. Matthew and Luke are both considerably longer than Mark.

The difficulty in explaining the similarities and differences among the Synoptic Gospels is referred to as the Synoptic Problem in the world of biblical scholarship. In the final analysis, the Synoptic “Problem” is not much of a problem at all—God inspired three Gospel writers to record the events surrounding the same Person during the same part of His life in the same locations, yet with slightly different emphases aimed at different readers. Unquote

Good grief. I hope you get to the point before long. I'm falling asleep. All obvious things here, none of which do anything to support your interpretation of Matthew 24:15-21.

Luke was not an eyewitness. His record is the record of eyewitnesses whose witness he wrote down. There is no reason why everything that Luke wrote about what Jesus said after He mentioned the coming destruction of the temple, had to be recorded by Matthew and Mark also.

Who said that? No one. So much times you wasted arguing with your straw man.

That's not the way eyewitness accounts work, and it's not a phenomena that exists in the synoptic gospels.

Luke does not even mention that Jesus was on the Mount of Olives when He spoke about anything Luke records in Luke 21.

How does any of this support your interpretation of Matthew 24:15-21? You did nothing here to explain why you draw the conclusion that the question "what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?" (Luke 21:7) means something different than the question than "what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?" (Mark 13:4). You are clearly going out of your way to try to get around this.

You will deny this, but you just make it more and more plain by your questions that you are trying to find reasons for your conjecture, instead of letting Matthew and Mark each speak for themselves regarding what they recorded about Jesus' words on the Mount of Olives that day, instead of through sheer conjecture asserting that Matthew and Mark both also recorded what Luke recorded about Jesus saying regarding the sign that the wrath of God was about to come upon Jerusalem, as if what Matthew and Mark wrote was a commentary on what Luke recorded.

Of course I deny that because it's total nonsense. Can you please stop dodging the problem you created for yourself and explain why you interpret basically the same questions (in Luke 21:7 and Mark 13:4) completely differently?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You can't read. Luke spoke about the fact that Jesus said that the wrath of God was going come upon Jerusalem and the disciples would know it when they see armies surround Jerusalem.

Matthew spoke about the fact that Jesus said that when the disciples see the abomination of desolation in the holy place, the disciples would know that the end of the Age had come and greatest period of tribulation Christians will ever experience will be upon us, leading to the Lord's return - days which will be shortened for the elect's sake.

And because you conflate the above things through sheer conjecture, you will never ever be able to prove any invention you ever come up with as to how the things which occurred in 70 AD were shortened for anybody's sake, let alone the elect..

All this back and forth repeating ourselves is making me nauseous. So, let me just ask you this. Assume for the sake of argument that Luke wrote about the same thing as found in Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20.

Considering that Luke was writing primarily to Gentiles, do you think he would have written it as: "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: ) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains"? Be honest here. Would he have written "(whoso readeth, let him understand)" in reference to a prophecy in Daniel to Gentiles who knew nothing about any prophecies in the book of Daniel? I don't believe that for a second. It's not as if Luke never paraphrased what Jesus said for the benefit of his primary audience. He certainly did. So, I believe Luke would have done so in this case as well. I know this doesn't prove anything one way or another about Luke 21:20-24, but I thought I would give you one more thing to think about.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You can't understand. Luke provided the interpretive details for identifying and locating the abomination of desolation.

Details which were unmistakably fulfilled by 70 AD.

Right. And why did he do that? For the benefit of his Gentile audience who would not have known anything about the prophecy in Daniel. Imagine Luke writing "whoso readeth, let him understand" to the Gentiles. As if they could possibly understand. They did not have any exposure to Daniel's prophecies like the Jews did.