LOCUSTS From The Book of JOEL

[Spiritual Israelite]

The basis for what I am writing here is found in John's own language in Revelation 1:3 and 22:10 and elsewhere in the book. John announced that "the time is AT HAND" in his own days for the fulfillment of those prophecies of future events. Just because you cannot see HOW those events were fulfilled back in the first century does not mean that they had NOT been fulfilled back then in John's days.

Let me make something clear. I am not saying that nothing was fulfilled back then. Clearly, when Jesus was talking to those first century churches He was talking about things that had been going on in those churches in the past, things going on there in the present and what He would do if they didn't repent and such. But, what exactly does Revelation 1:3 mean? That literally everything referenced in the book was "at hand"? Clearly not! Have you never read this verse:

Revelation 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

What this verse indicates is that John was to write about things that happened in the past (for example, Jesus's birth and ascension - Revelation 12:5), things that were happening at the time he wrote the book (such as the people of the church in Ephesus leaving their first love and needing to repent of that) and things that would happen after that. How do you reconcile your understanding of Revelation 1:3 with what it says in Revelation 1:19?

And what about the thousand years of Revelation 20? While I don't believe that is referring to a literal thousand years, I certainly don't believe it can refer to a very short amount of time that was "at hand", either! If that was the case, just how "little" would Satan's little season be? How do you reconcile the thousand years with your understanding of the book of Revelation?

If a writer (CHRIST through John) tells you how to interpret His own book in both the introduction (Rev. 1:3) and the conclusion (Rev. 22:10) of His work, you are obliged to go by that directive - regardless of what you think may or may not have happened back then.

Why is it that you ignore Revelation 1:19? As is the case for so many people on this forum, you draw conclusions from isolated verses that contradict other verses. And you don't seem to care about that. I don't get it. Look at scripture as a whole. Don't interpret any verse in such a way that contradicts any other verse or passage.

Revelations' fulfilled predictions for the New Heavens and the New Earth are in place today, and have been since AD 70 and the end of that AGE.

Nonsense. There is obviously still death, sorrow, crying and pain.

If you paid careful attention to Isaiah 65's conditions predicted for this NHNE, you would see that physical death is still taking place there for both the righteous and the wicked, and that childbirth and prayers are still occurring (which are not part of the eternal state).

No, it is not. John would not write something that would contradict Isaiah 65. What you are not recognizing is that Isaiah wrote about eternity in a way that people back then could understand. A child dying at 100 years old? You can't take that literally. Why would you? It was Isaiah's way of describing eternity that people could wrap their heads around. Eternity was a foreign concept in OT times. Only in NT times did the concept of eternity and eternal life start to be understood because Jesus made the way for eternal life.

The NHNE conditions with the "healing of the nations" is still an ongoing process on earth (as in Revelation 22:2) , because the evangelistic commission is still ours to perform, even during the New Covenant conditions of a NHNE existence.

You are misinterpreting verse after verse after verse. That is not talking about healing sickness or pain. That would be ridiculous after John had previously said there would be no more death, sorrow, crying or pain in the new heavens and new earth. He would be contradicting himself. That passage is symbolic.

The Greek word translated as "healing" there is therapeia (Strong's G2322). It can be used in the sense of healing sickness, but also can be used in the sense of serving or providing nourishment.

Revelation 22:1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. 2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Do you think this is talking about a literal "pure river of water of life", a literal street and a literal tree of life? No, it is not. Notice that God the Father and the Lamb are mentioned there. What about the Holy Spirit? He is mentioned symbolically. That is what the "pure river of water of life" symbolically represents.

John 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. 38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

It's all a symbolic representation of how everyone will have perfect healthy and be kept in perfect health. After all, we will have incorruptible and immortal bodies at that point (1 Corinthians 15:50-54). How could we get sick or have pain with immortal bodies? Impossible. So, you are not taking all of scripture into account here. You are just interpreting verses in the book of Revelation in isolation from the rest of scripture and your interpretations are contradicting other scripture.

 

[3 Resurrections]

But, what exactly does Revelation 1:3 mean? That literally everything referenced in the book was "at hand"? Clearly not! Have you never read this verse:

Revelation 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

What this verse indicates is that John was to write about things that happened in the past (for example, Jesus's birth and ascension - Revelation 12:5), things that were happening at the time he wrote the book (such as the people of the church in Ephesus leaving their first love and needing to repent of that) and things that would happen after that. How do you reconcile your understanding of Revelation 1:3 with what it says in Revelation 1:19?

I quote this Revelation 1:19 verse all the time. It reconciles perfectly with Revelation 1:3 and the time which was "AT HAND" in the first-century generation for John's prophecies to be fulfilled. "Write the things that ARE" (presently going on in John's days), "and the things thou HAST seen" (events in the past for John's audience),"and the things that are ABOUT TO BE hereafter" (soon to occur in John's first-century generation). All of Revelation's revealed prophecies for future events were "ABOUT TO" take place "shortly" in John's near future. The lone exceptions to this were the "sealed up" visions in Revelation 10:4 which John was forbidden to write down, since these would not be fulfilled in the time that was then "AT HAND".

And what about the thousand years of Revelation 20? While I don't believe that is referring to a literal thousand years, I certainly don't believe it can refer to a very short amount of time that was "at hand", either! If that was the case, just how "little" would Satan's little season be? How do you reconcile the thousand years with your understanding of the book of Revelation?

The (literal) thousand years came to an end with the "First resurrection" of Christ and the relatively small "remnant of the dead" (the Matthew 27:52-53 saints) which came to life again when the thousand years ended in AD 33. Satan was then released for a "short time" and a "little season" until he and his devils were destroyed by God in the city of Jerusalem's Lake of Fire conditions in AD 70.

A "little season" is less than a "long season", which scripture compares to the 40 years of wilderness wanderings in Joshua 24:7 ("And ye dwelt in the wilderness a long season.") Satan's "short time" and "little season" of release lasted from AD 33 until he and his devils were imprisoned in AD 66 in the city of Jerusalem (Rev. 18:2) which became a "habitation of devils, and a prison for every unclean spirit" during those Great Tribulation years in Judea and Jerusalem. Christ had predicted this overwhelming surge of seven-fold demonic oppression which His own "wicked generation" would experience in it "last state" (Matt. 12:43-45).

Why is it that you ignore Revelation 1:19? As is the case for so many people on this forum, you draw conclusions from isolated verses that contradict other verses. And you don't seem to care about that. I don't get it. Look at scripture as a whole. Don't interpret any verse in such a way that contradicts any other verse or passage.

I've never ignored Revelation 1:19, as I said above. I use it as proof of my points all the time. And I do look at scripture as a whole, and have been doing so for some twelve years of eschatology study so far.

You are misinterpreting verse after verse after verse. That is not talking about healing sickness or pain. That would be ridiculous after John had previously said there would be no more death, sorrow, crying or pain in the new heavens and new earth. He would be contradicting himself. That passage is symbolic.

When Revelation speaks of no more sickness or pain, you should compare this to Isaiah's use of this term when describing the new Jerusalem in Isaiah 33:24. "And the inhabitant shall not say, I am sick (or in pain), for the people that dwell therein shall be forgiven their iniquity." Here, Isaiah equates no more sickness or pain with having one's sins forgiven in the New Jerusalem, just like John did in Revelation 21:4.

I do not deny that physical health of an incorruptible body will be ours in the final resurrected state. However, John was not describing the resurrected state in Revelation 21 - he was describing the conditions in the New Jerusalem reality which we now occupy under the New Covenant and the New Heavens and New Earth which has already been established long ago.

Revelation 22:1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. 2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Do you think this is talking about a literal "pure river of water of life", a literal street and a literal tree of life? No, it is not. Notice that God the Father and the Lamb are mentioned there. What about the Holy Spirit? He is mentioned symbolically. That is what the "pure river of water of life" symbolically represents.

John 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. 38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Sure, I agree with all this. It is a present reality for us, with that river of the Holy Spirit's influence flowing from the New Jerusalem continually. Zechariah 14:8 presented this as an ongoing reality for the New Jerusalem at Christ's second coming to the Mount of Olives. A second coming which coincided with the destruction of Old Jerusalem in "the siege both against Judah and Jerusalem" from AD 66-70.

What you are not recognizing is that Isaiah wrote about eternity in a way that people back then could understand. A child dying at 100 years old? You can't take that literally. Why would you? It was Isaiah's way of describing eternity that people could wrap their heads around. Eternity was a foreign concept in OT times. Only in NT times did the concept of eternity and eternal life start to be understood because Jesus made the way for eternal life.

No, Isaiah 65's NHNE was NOT describing the eternal state. That is impossible, because the begetting of children is still taking place in this NHNE reality (Isaiah 65:23). Definitely not what the eternal state is about, since there is no marriage or giving in marriage in the resurrected state in eternity. Unless you think there will be bastard children being born in eternity?

Isaiah also described prayers in the NHNE ascending to God in Isaiah 65:24, which isn't going to be needed when we are dwelling with God eternally after the final resurrection.

 

[Ziggy]

10The field is ruined; the land mourns. For the grain is destroyed, the new wine is dried up, and the oil fails.11Be dismayed, O farmers, wail, O vinedressers, over the wheat and barley, because the harvest of the field has perished.12The grapevine is dried up, and the fig tree is withered; the pomegranate, palm, and apple— all the trees of the orchard—are withered. Surely the joy of mankind has dried up.

The field is the world. The grain is the seed. The new wine is the blood of the covenant. The oil is the holy spirit, the anointing.
The harvest are the believers? Grapes, figs, pomegranates, palm and apple.. the fruits of the spirit are withered.
Surely the joy of mankind has dried up.

Luk 10:1
After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.
Luk 10:2
Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest.

Mat 13:37
He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
Mat 13:38
The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
Mat 13:39
The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
Mat 13:40
As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
Mat 13:41
The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
Mat 13:42
And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Mat 13:43
Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Rev 9:3
And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.
Rev 9:11
And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.

1. Abaddon = "destruction"
   1. ruin
   2. destruction
   3. the place of destruction
   4. the name of the angel-prince of the infernal regions, the minister of death and the author of havoc on the earth

anybody starting to feel the heat?
Hugs

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I quote this Revelation 1:19 verse all the time. It reconciles perfectly with Revelation 1:3 and the time which was "AT HAND" in the first-century generation for John's prophecies to be fulfilled. "Write the things that ARE" (presently going on in John's days), "and the things thou HAST seen" (events in the past for John's audience),"and the things that are ABOUT TO BE hereafter" (soon to occur in John's first-century generation). All of Revelation's revealed prophecies for future events were "ABOUT TO" take place "shortly" in John's near future. The lone exceptions to this were the "sealed up" visions in Revelation 10:4 which John was forbidden to write down, since these would not be fulfilled in the time that was then "AT HAND".

Sigh. You interpret everything with extreme doctrinal bias. For one thing, you interpret Revelation 1:3 to be saying EVERYTHING written about in the book was "at hand". You are saying correctly that Revelation 1:19 says that he was told to write about things in the past. Were the things he wrote about from the past "at hand"? No, they happened in the past. So, that right there contradicts your understanding of Revelation 1:3.

Also, what you're saying is not what "hereafter" means. It is translated from the Greek word "meta" in combination with the Greek word "hauta". The word "meta" means "after" and the word "hauta" means "these things", so what the verse is saying is that John was told to write about things that happened in the past, things that were happening at the time he was writing the book, and things that would happen after these things (after the current things had past).

The Greek word, translated there as "hereafter", itself does NOT imply anything one way or another about how long after the current events ended that the "hereafter" things would occur. But, that is what you are trying to claim. It's a baseless claim that you did not back up at all. It's something you're making up. It just generally means "after" when used in relation to time (the word has other definitions that aren't used in relation to time as well.). Could be shortly after. Could be a long time after.

The book contains descriptions of things that both happened soon after the current things that John described and long after those things as well. You're trying to make up a definition for that word which doesn't exist which reminds me of what dispensationalists do with Daniel 9:26 when they deny that the Messiah was cut off AFTER the end of the 69th week (placing His death therefore in the 70th week). Do you really want to do the same kind of thing they do to make scripture fit your doctrine?

Now, unlike you, I'm going to provide scriptural evidence to back up what I'm saying.

Matthew 1:11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon: 12 And after (Greek: meta) they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;

Now, is this verse saying that after Jechonias and his brethren were taken to Babylon, Jechonias became the father of Salathiel and Salathiel became the father of Zorobabel after that? No, it is not saying that. Instead, it is saying Jechonias became the father of Salathiel and Salathiel became the father of Zorobabel an indefinite amount of time after they were taken to Babylon. Surely, Zorobabel, the grandson of Jechonias, was not born soon after Jechonias and his brethren were taken to Babylon.

This verse alone proves that your definition for the word "hereafter" (Greek: meta) is made up. But, there are others which prove that as well. And I'll share a couple of those.

Matthew 25:19 After (Greek: meta) a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.

In this verse, the word is used to describe something that would occur "a long time" after something else occurred. It's talking about "the lord of those servants" who were given various numbers of talents coming to reckon with them a long time after giving them the talents. Which is talking about Jesus giving people gifts and abilities and a long, indefinite amount of time later coming to judge them based on what they did with what He gave them. That certainly contradicts your claim that the word must be used to describe something that would occur soon or shortly after something else occurs.

John 13:5 After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded. 6 Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet? 7 Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter.

Here, Jesus indicated to Peter that he could not understand what Jesus was doing at that time, but would understand at some point after that without giving any indication one way or another of how long after that time it would be before Peter would understand what Jesus was doing at that time. So, here, the word is again used to refer to something happening an indefinite amount of time after something else happened.

Here is one more example where the word is used to describe an indefinite amount of time that something would occur after something else occurred:

Acts 7:1 Then said the high priest, Are these things so? 2 And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran, 3 And said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall shew thee. 4 Then came he out of the land of the Chaldaeans, and dwelt in Charran: and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell. 5 And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after (Greek: meta) him, when as yet he had no child.

In Acts 7:5, the word is used to describe God promising to give Abraham land as a possession and also "to his seed after him". Is it saying "his seed after him" would all be around soon after him (which would be a reference only to his children and not their children and so on?) or is this talking about his seed that would come after him for an indefinite amount of time, which would mean it would include his children , grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc.? The latter, right? So, the word again is used to refer to an indefinite amount of time here and not in reference to a soon after time.

The (literal) thousand years came to an end with the "First resurrection" of Christ and the relatively small "remnant of the dead" (the Matthew 27:52-53 saints) which came to life again when the thousand years ended in AD 33.

This is possibly the worst interpretation of scripture imaginable. You couldn't interpret it worse if you tried. To suggest that the thousand years was literal and began even before Christ's resurrection is utterly absurd. Even if that was true, how was the thousand years "at hand" when John wrote the book? Oops. Your interpretation of Revelation 1:3 once again contradicts other scripture, even in the book of Revelation itself.

Revelation 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, 8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. 9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

This indicates that the thousand years had not yet expired when this was written because it talks about something that would happen in the future from the time this was written. Once the thousand years would expire in the future, then Satan would be loosed. In no way, shape or forum does John indicate that this has already happened.

And then there is this:

Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

You indicated that you believe the first resurrection was Christ's resurrection along with those who are referenced in Matthew 27:52-53. This verse indicates that Christ would reign along with those who have part in the first resurrection for a thousand years AFTER the first resurrection occurred. You somehow, inexplicably have the thousand years ending when the first resurrection occurs rather than beginning when the first resurrection occurs. How do you explain that? How can you have Christ reigning for a thousand years even before His resurrection?

Satan was then released for a "short time" and a "little season" until he and his devils were destroyed by God in the city of Jerusalem's Lake of Fire conditions in AD 70.

Another terrible interpretation. The text indicates that the thousand years would BEGIN upon the first resurrection, not END upon the first resurrection. So, that little season that would occur after the thousand years ended couldn't possibly have occurred just before 70 AD.

I can't read any more of this. It's so nonsensical that it's giving me a headache.

 

[3 Resurrections]

The Greek word, translated there as "hereafter", itself does NOT imply anything one way or another about how long after the current events ended that the "hereafter" things would occur. But, that is what you are trying to claim.

I am not focusing on the "meta" term. Scripture's emphasis in Revelation 1:19 is not just on the "meta" term, but on the "mellei" term, which tells us just how soon those future events would transpire.

"Write therefore the things that you have seen, and the things that are, and the things that are ABOUT TO (mellei) take place after (meta) these."

Christ's mention in Revelation 1:3 of the events that were "AT HAND" included things that were presently going on for John's audience, and those things which were "ABOUT TO" take place after these. The stage backdrop (of past events) was set, the characters were already on the stage, and the prophesied future events were just about to play out in those first-century days. I am not making up the meaning of the Greek "mellei" term. This word indicates imminence - not something that would be prolonged into times that were far off from John's days, such as our own future.

How can you have Christ reigning for a thousand years even before His resurrection?

The second person of the Trinity has always reigned in one way or another of that rule being manifested over the millennia of human history. His rule is not limited to a mere thousand years. That limitation of a literal thousand years was only put upon Satan's deception of the nations - not on Christ's rule.

Anyone who is a child of faith has "reigned in life by one, Jesus Christ" (Romans 5:17). Those who in faith saw the coming of the Just One from creation forward were living and reigning with Christ during their life of faith on earth, even though the incarnate Son of Man had yet to be made flesh.

You indicated that you believe the first resurrection was Christ's resurrection along with those who are referenced in Matthew 27:52-53. This verse indicates that Christ would reign along with those who have part in the first resurrection for a thousand years AFTER the first resurrection occurred.

No, it doesn't say that at all. You want to presume that their reigning with Christ for a thousand years follows AFTER the first resurrection, but it never says that. The "remnant of the dead coming to life again WAS the "First resurrection" event which occurred when the millennium was "FINISHED". Christ's resurrection and that of the Matt. 27:52-53 "remnant of the dead" all came to life again as the "First resurrection" event when the millennium was finished.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I am not focusing on the "meta" term.

Maybe you should. It clearly is a word used to describe an indefinite amount of time that something would occur after another thing. But, that is not how you are understanding the things that would happen "hereafter".

Scripture's emphasis in Revelation 1:19 is not just on the "meta" term, but on the "mellei" term, which tells us just how soon those future events would transpire.

"Write therefore the things that you have seen, and the things that are, and the things that are ABOUT TO (mellei) take place after (meta) these."

You are creating a new definition for that word that doesn't exist as well. You should not do that. Just let scripture say what it says without trying to change it. That word CAN refer to something that is "ABOUT TO" happen, but it does NOT have to mean that. So, you're either being dishonest about what the word supposedly has to mean, as if there are no exceptions (about to) or you are naive and don't realize it does not have to mean "about to" and can also be used to refer to things that would happen in an indefinite amount of time, including up to a long time, after something else happens.

That word is used in this passage (verse 14):

Matthew 11:11 Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12 From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, and violent people have been raiding it. 13 For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. 14 And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was (mello or mellei) to come.

So, if the word has to mean "about to" and can't mean anything else, as you seem to be saying, then that would mean Jesus was saying that John the Baptist was "the Elijah who was" about to come. Jesus was referencing the prophecy from Malachi 4:5-6 there which I believe was written about 400 years before Jesus said that. Was John the Baptist about to come 400 years before he actually came "to turn the hearts of the parents to their children, and the hearts of the children to their parents"? Of course not. So, please stop trying to change the meanings of words to make scripture fit your doctrine.

The second person of the Trinity has always reigned in one way or another of that rule being manifested over the millennia of human history. His rule is not limited to a mere thousand years. That limitation of a literal thousand years was only put upon Satan's deception of the nations - not on Christ's rule.

But, Jesus was not always human. Scripture indicates that after He came to earth and was then God in human flesh, He died and rose again and at that point He said "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" (Matthew 28:18) and it was at that point when God the Father "raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church" (Ephesians 1:19-22).

So, in that sense Jesus began to reign after His resurrection and ascension to the Father's right hand. That is what Revelation 20 is talking about so that is the starting point of the thousand years. What you're trying to say was the starting point of the thousand years makes no sense at all and you are not using scripture to interpret scripture to come to your conclusions.

No, it doesn't say that at all. You want to presume that their reigning with Christ for a thousand years follows AFTER the first resurrection, but it never says that.

LOL. I suppose that's technically true, but so what? I should just ignore other scripture then? Other scripture talks about Jesus beginning to reign after His resurrection (Matt 28:18, Ephesians 1:19-23, etc.) and His resurrection is the first resurrection.

Acts 26:23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

Do you not believe in the concept of interpreting scripture with scripture? Looking at scripture as a whole makes it easy to see what Revelation 20 is talking about, but you seem to interpret it in isolation from all other scripture.

The "remnant of the dead coming to life again WAS the "First resurrection" event which occurred when the millennium was "FINISHED". Christ's resurrection and that of the Matt. 27:52-53 "remnant of the dead" all came to life again as the "First resurrection" event when the millennium was finished.

Well, at least you have the timing of the first resurrection about right, but scripture teaches that Christ's resurrection itself was the first resurrection. He was the first to be resurrected unto bodily immortality. According to Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:20-23, next in order to be resurrected unto bodily immortality are those who belong to Him when He comes again and that has not happened yet.

 

[3 Resurrections]

You are creating a new definition for that word that doesn't exist as well. You should not do that. Just let scripture say what it says without trying to change it. That word CAN refer to something that is "ABOUT TO" happen, but it does NOT have to mean that.

I agree that the "mello" term can sometimes mean the emphasis on the certainty of something intended to happen instead of its imminence. But that is not the majority of the use of this "mello" word in scripture. As usual, context is the main key. And Revelation 1:19's context concerning "things that are ABOUT TO (mellei) take place after these" is surrounded by the "AT HAND" phrase in Rev. 1:3, and the "shortly come to pass" phrase in Rev. 1:1. Anything of future import revealed in Revelation was designed to occur soon in that first-century generation.

This imminent sense of events in John's immediate future continues with Rev. 2:10's mention of the church in Smyrna being told to "fear not those things which thou are about to (melleis) suffer", when Satan was "about to (mellei) cast some of you into prison". If the believers in these churches remained faithful under persecution in those days, even unto death, they were promised to receive the crown of life. This would be given them at Christ's second coming return in AD70, which was not long from when John wrote Revelation somewhere between AD 59 and early AD 60.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I agree that the "mello" term can sometimes mean the emphasis on the certainty of something intended to happen instead of its imminence

Honestly, I'm almost shocked that you actually acknowledged this. Not that it should be hard to acknowledge, but I didn't think you would. So, congratulations on being open minded about that, at least.

. But that is not the majority of the use of this "mello" word in scripture.

That does not determine how it is used in Revelation 1:19, so that comment doesn't mean much. That is something to take into consideration, but that is not how to determine the context of that verse.

As usual, context is the main key.

Agree. And the context of Revelation 1:19 should involve taking into consideration that there are things written about in the book that still have not been fulfilled. You falsely think otherwise, but that's on you. I can't take your overall interpretation of the book seriously. Your interpretation of Revelation 20 in particular is something that I especially can't take seriously.

And Revelation 1:19's context concerning "things that are ABOUT TO (mellei) take place after these" is surrounded by the "AT HAND" phrase in Rev. 1:3, and the "shortly come to pass" phrase in Rev. 1:1.

Nope. Because it also talks about things in the past from the time the book was written, according to Revelation 1:19. Where do Revelation 1:1 and Revelation 1:3 talk about that? They don't. So, you can't apply those verses to the entire book or else it couldn't be saying anything about the past from the time it was written even though it obviously does.

Anything of future import revealed in Revelation was designed to occur soon in that first-century generation.

I disagree. I certainly don't think you've done anything to prove that. Your interpretation of Revelation 20 tells me that this is just what you want to believe rather than you being able to prove that this is actually indicated in the book.

This imminent sense of events in John's immediate future continues with Rev. 2:10's mention of the church in Smyrna being told to "fear not those things which thou are about to (melleis) suffer", when Satan was "about to (mellei) cast some of you into prison". If the believers in these churches remained faithful under persecution in those days, even unto death, they were promised to receive the crown of life. This would be given them at Christ's second coming return in AD70, which was not long from when John wrote Revelation somewhere between AD 59 and early AD 60.

There was no second coming of Christ in 70 AD. It does not give any indication of exactly when they would receive the crown of life.

 

[PS95]

according to JW teaching- they are the Locusts from the bottomless pit whose king is Abaddon.
No joke.
They used to think they were also the locusts in Joel but that was recently changed.................

 

[3 Resurrections]

I disagree. I certainly don't think you've done anything to prove that. Your interpretation of Revelation 20 tells me that this is just what you want to believe rather than you being able to prove that this is actually indicated in the book.

You are then disagreeing with how God defines the fulfillment of an "AT HAND" prophecy in Ezekiel 12:21-28. Yes, Revelation 1:19 does speak of past, present, and future prophecies in relation to John's time. But those prophecies concerning the present AND the future were then "AT HAND" for John's own generation to experience in their days. The past events only provided the background information to help John's first-century audience with understanding how those events were "about to" be fulfilled. According to God's own terms in Ezekiel 12:21-28, those "at hand" prophecies would not be "prolonged" into "times that are far off". Instead, God not only spoke those "AT HAND" prophecies, but He also "performed them in YOUR days" for those who were first given those prophecies by John.

There was no second coming of Christ in 70 AD. It does not give any indication of exactly when they would receive the crown of life.

Paul, Christ, and the NT authors all made the same prophetic statement that Christ would return in that first-century generation before it had passed away in those "last days". Paul knew the timing of his own approaching death, and spoke of the crown of life which the righteous Judge would give him on the day of the Lord's appearing (2 Tim. 4:8). Paul knew also and told governor Felix that "there is about to be a resurrection of the dead, both the just and the unjust" (Acts 24:15). Paul made this same statement of Christ's imminent return that was "about to be" in the first century to both those on Mars Hill (Acts17:31) and to Timothy (2 Timothy 4:1).

Agree. And the context of Revelation 1:19 should involve taking into consideration that there are things written about in the book that still have not been fulfilled. You falsely think otherwise, but that's on you.

This is the typical hermeneutic people employ when trying to interpret Revelation. They begin with the assumption that what they read about cannot possibly have been fulfilled yet. After that, the imminent sense of the time-relevant language in Revelation then takes second place to those pre-conceived, personal assumptions. This erroneously puts a person's opinions in the driver's seat instead of letting Revelation's own language direct the interpretation.

 

[Timtofly]

Well, that is okay. I probably reacted too quickly and skimmed your post too quickly.

However, what I said that the Locusts will be the judged kings of the earth at Armageddon in around 20 years' time is true. The king that they have over them is "Abaddon," and the Greek root has the meaning of the destroying Angel in the Abyss who is none other than Satan. From scripture we read that Satan does have the ability to influence people to be his servants and subjects.

Shalom

Well we also know that they are the angels who left their first estate, and bound in chains of darkness, and only released at the 5th Trumpet. By the 7th Trumpet, they are attacking heaven itself, and have to be cast out by Michael. Jude does not say how many angels there are bound.

"And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."

We get that amount from Revelation 12:13

"And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth."

That is all we know other than they are described as locust. But the angels are not judged at Armageddon. They may be tossed into the LOF then, but we only have the three chapters covering these angelic beings, otherwise created as stars, but walked off the job to follow Satan.

 

[Timtofly]

Futurists and preterists both misinterpret parts of the Olivet Discourse because of wrongly thinking it is either all about 70 AD or all about things that have not yet happened. It's about both.

Luke 21 was all spoken at the Temple to all there that day. Luke is the one who places part of what Jesus said in the 70AD events.

Luke still says all will be fulfilled by the time a last generation is on the earth, but that generation would not see the destruction of Jerusalem.

Why do people get bent out of shape that Jesus could have repeated some of what was said at the Temple again on the Mount of Olives? This back and forth from the Temple to the Mount of Olives happened over the course of several days. Teaching in the Temple covered the same information as on the Mount of Olives.

We are only given the highlights of these days. Jesus was more specific to His disciples in private.

"And in the day time he was teaching in the temple; and at night he went out, and abode in the mount that is called the mount of Olives. And all the people came early in the morning to him in the temple, for to hear him."

It was both a Temple and Olivet Discourse.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Luke 21 was all spoken at the Temple to all there that day. Luke is the one who places part of what Jesus said in the 70AD events.

Luke still says all will be fulfilled by the time a last generation is on the earth, but that generation would not see the destruction of Jerusalem.

Why do people get bent out of shape that Jesus could have repeated some of what was said at the Temple again on the Mount of Olives? This back and forth from the Temple to the Mount of Olives happened over the course of several days. Teaching in the Temple covered the same information as on the Mount of Olives.

We are only given the highlights of these days. Jesus was more specific to His disciples in private.

"And in the day time he was teaching in the temple; and at night he went out, and abode in the mount that is called the mount of Olives. And all the people came early in the morning to him in the temple, for to hear him."

It was both a Temple and Olivet Discourse.

LOL. More nonsense from you. So, you expect me to believe that the disciples asked these questions at the temple:

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?

After which He answered them. And then you think later at the Mount of Olives they asked the same questions again?

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?

And then He answered the same questions again? LOL!!! Did they just forget everything He had already recently told them? LOL! Ridiculous. You come up with the most ridiculous nonsense imaginable. Why? How does this happen? Are you just playing a joke on everyone?

Just because Luke doesn't specify where Jesus and the disciples were located in Luke 21:7 doesn't mean you should assume they were still at the temple. The other 2 accounts make it clear as to where they were when the disciples asked their questions.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You are then disagreeing with how God defines the fulfillment of an "AT HAND" prophecy in Ezekiel 12:21-28. Yes, Revelation 1:19 does speak of past, present, and future prophecies in relation to John's time. But those prophecies concerning the present AND the future were then "AT HAND" for John's own generation to experience in their days. The past events only provided the background information to help John's first-century audience with understanding how those events were "about to" be fulfilled. According to God's own terms in Ezekiel 12:21-28, those "at hand" prophecies would not be "prolonged" into "times that are far off". Instead, God not only spoke those "AT HAND" prophecies, but He also "performed them in YOUR days" for those who were first given those prophecies by John.

How convenient for you to explain away the past events that were NOT "at hand". I can't take this seriously. To me, you are making scripture say what you want it to say. You do not interpret the rest of the book in a consistent manner with how you interpret Revelation 1:3. You explain it away with your nonsense about the past events. And your interpretation of Revelation 20 doesn't even begin to make any sense. I just can't take that seriously.

 

[Timtofly]

LOL. More nonsense from you. So, you expect me to believe that the disciples asked these questions at the temple:

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?

After which He answered them. And then you think later at the Mount of Olives they asked the same questions again?

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?

And then He answered the same questions again? LOL!!! Did they just forget everything He had already recently told them? LOL! Ridiculous. You come up with the most ridiculous nonsense imaginable. Why? How does this happen? Are you just playing a joke on everyone?

Just because Luke doesn't specify where Jesus and the disciples were located in Luke 21:7 doesn't mean you should assume they were still at the temple. The other 2 accounts make it clear as to where they were when the disciples asked their questions.

Luke 21:7 does not say disciples nor infer disciples. You are not even paying attention to the question asked.

"And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts... 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?"

Why would Jesus' disciples point out the adornment of the Temple?


Later on the Mount of Olives, the disciples asked:

"And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?"

The disciples were not concerned about the Temple, but of the Second Coming and the end of the world.

Point out in Luke 21 where they arive at the Mount of Olives......

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Luke 21:7 does not say disciples nor infer disciples. You are not even paying attention to the question asked.

LOL. You keep digging the hole deeper and deeper.

Luke 21:5 Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, 6 “As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.” 7 “Teacher,” they asked, “when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?”

Who else but the disciples asked those questions? Why can't you even understand the simplest things?

"And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts... 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?"

Why would Jesus' disciples point out the adornment of the Temple?

LOL! And deeper and deeper...

Matthew 24:1 Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

Mark 13:1 As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!” 2 “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

 

[Timtofly]

LOL. You keep digging the hole deeper and deeper.

Luke 21:5 Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, 6 “As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.” 7 “Teacher,” they asked, “when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?”

Who else but the disciples asked those questions? Why can't you even understand the simplest things?

You have failed to point out in Luke 21 where Jesus left the Temple.


So you found a version of the Bible that departs from the Greek text and says what you want God's Word to say?

You can add your opinion to God's Word, but that does not change God's Word.

Many at that time called Jesus rabbi, teacher, master, not just 12 close males referred to as His disciples. John 3:1-2

"There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him."

Was Nicodemus one of the twelve disciples?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You have failed to point out in Luke 21 where Jesus left the Temple.

Explain to me why every account of an event has to contain all of the same details in order to be about the same event. Think about this. Matthew, Mark and Luke were either eyewitnesses or were told by eyewitnesses about what Jesus said. Would you really expect that they would all write the exact same things with the same exact amount of detail in each of their accounts of the Olivet Discourse? Of course not.

You don't question whether Mark 13 is an account of the Olivet Discourse or not despite having much less overall details than Matthew 24-25. I'd expect each account to have more details than the other at times and that is exactly what we see. Matthew obviously included much more details, overall, than either Mark or Luke did. Mark and Luke didn't even record what we see written in Matthew 25 even though that is part of the Olivet Discourse.

So, to conclude that Luke 21 can't be an account of the same Olivet Discourse as Matthew 24-25 and Mark 13 just because one detail is missing in Luke 21:7 that is found in the other 2 accounts is ridiculous. It isn't as if anything recorded in Luke 21 contradicts anything recorded in Matthew 24-25 or Mark 13. In that case, we could conclude it was a different discourse. But, that is not the case.

 

[Timtofly]

Explain to me why every account of an event has to contain all of the same details in order to be about the same event. Think about this. Matthew, Mark and Luke were either eyewitnesses or were told by eyewitnesses about what Jesus said. Would you really expect that they would all write the exact same things with the same exact amount of detail in each of their accounts of the Olivet Discourse? Of course not.

You don't question whether Mark 13 is an account of the Olivet Discourse or not despite having much less overall details than Matthew 24-25. I'd expect each account to have more details than the other at times and that is exactly what we see. Matthew obviously included much more details, overall, than either Mark or Luke did. Mark and Luke didn't even record what we see written in Matthew 25 even though that is part of the Olivet Discourse.

So, to conclude that Luke 21 can't be an account of the same Olivet Discourse as Matthew 24-25 and Mark 13 just because one detail is missing in Luke 21:7 that is found in the other 2 accounts is ridiculous. It isn't as if anything recorded in Luke 21 contradicts anything recorded in Matthew 24-25 or Mark 13. In that case, we could conclude it was a different discourse. But, that is not the case.

This is actually the first time, that Jesus did not teach using parables in public. But to just dismiss that Jesus was being frank and straightforward will allow all sorts of interpretations as we see today.

Did I say it was two seperate discourses? Jesus has been explaining the same Discourse in parables for 3.5 years, no?

For someone who claims different camera views, you seem to want only one single camera, and one single view that you then have to distort reality to get your interpretation to work.

You won't even address the facts.

"And in the day time he was teaching in the temple; and at night he went out, and abode in the mount that is called the mount of Olives."

This would have started on Sunday when He entered Jerusalem on the colt in preparation for the event on the Cross.

"And they brought him to Jesus: and they cast their garments upon the colt, and they set Jesus thereon. And as he went, they spread their clothes in the way. And when he was come nigh, even now at the descent of the mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen; Saying, Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest."

This final Discourse started on Sunday, and carried through to at least Tuesday. During the day this Discourse took place in the Temple and in the evening on the Mount of Olives. And yet we get less than a few short thoughts, and all similar across 3 Gospels of teachings that covers 3 days worth of material.

If you think Jesus was limited to just these few words and all 3 accounts are supposed to be the exact same, did Jesus keep repeating this 5 minutes over and over again like a broken record? What is so hard to see that 3 different people took 3 different sections and have just a brief overview of way more material than we have been given?

You are the one trying to insert "a detail" and then call it missing. It is not missing, because it never existed. Luke, as the historical account, did not have to write that his account took place on the mount of Olives for it to be part of this Discourse. We call it the Olivet Discourse, because as the church, that is where Jesus was addressing the church. None of the accounts call it the Olivet Discourse. That is a theological thought in addition to the text.

But yet we see in Matthew that there were both parables and explanations that did not include parables. So compared to how Jesus taught the other 3 years of ministry, one can conclude that not all of this account was in one particular location, but was from both the Temple and the Mount of Olives, and Luke never specified which was what. Matthew never said it took place over a 3 day time period. Maybe it did, or maybe it did not. Some claim Jesus was crucified on Friday, so what did He do all week then? That is even more days in the Temple, and evenings on the Mount of Olives, to account for.

We know it started on Sunday, because that is the first time, Jesus said:

"For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation. And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought; Saying unto them, It is written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves. And he taught daily in the temple."

So Luke already pointed out his theme of the coming destruction of the temple and Jerusalem. Unless you don't recognize Palm Sunday, and think it was a totally different day and event?

I don't know if one can place Matthew 24 and Luke 21 on a set day. It could be either Sunday, Monday, or Tuesday.

So unless you are only looking at this as a single 5 minute speech, instead of memories from a week long event that included the Cross as the most important event in human history, you are not looking at the bigger picture, but bogged down in human theology, and letting your bias sway your interpretation.

One would think that Matthew 25 included parables given in public as per all of Jesus' teaching. Does the order mean anything or just random? That parables are inserted between more explicit points also indicates a multiple day and evening event, so not just a single 5 minute speech some remember one way and others another way.

I don't ignore Mark. I think Mark was written first, begore any other account, as a scribe writing for Peter. I think Peter remained anonymous because of his denial of Christ, and did not feel worthy, and that is why we have the name Mark. Towards the end of his ministry, Peter did write two letters to the church. I don't see why the book of Mark should not be what Peter would have written as his testimonial Gospel, despite any remorse he felt during that week. In my opinion, I think Peter planted way more churches over the entire empire than Paul was given credit for. We have Paul's missionary trips written by Luke in Acts, but Peter does not have to have acknowledgement in Scripture to understand that he did more than Paul.

While many wrongly claim Peter was the foundation of the church, and not Jesus, that point should at least represent that a huge majority of those early churches were started by Peter, as that was Peter's act of obedience to God. John 21:15-17

"So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep."

Many would say this is Jesus healing Peter for the three times he denied Jesus. Even then, Peter seemed to be getting flustered. After Pentecost, Peter understood, but until that point, Peter was still thinking only Peter. Mark is ok as a cross reference to events. Mark is concise and to the point, but lacking extra detail that the other Gospels cover.

Matthew, John, and Mark are written from the perspective of the disciples/church. Luke is more historical and inclusive of the broader house of Jacob at that time. Since you fail to point out in Luke what I had asked about, here are the verses:

"Then said he unto them..."

"Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer: For I will give you a mouth and wisdom."

"And then shall they see..."

"And he spake to them...."

"So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand."

"And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth. Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man."

"And in the day time he was teaching in the temple; and at night he went out, and abode in the mount that is called the mount of Olives."

Everyone who believes is included in this answer to those at the Temple on that day. Many would not believe, as we see their mood changed a few days later.

But there was one part that Jesus points out a "they" that would be future and only that last generation will have seen all things fulfilled, but would not experience all that Jesus talked about. So Luke is covering a broader range including that day. The other accounts are specific to the church and a future generation that would see all these things. All those at the Temple that day needed to hear what Jesus had to say. Many would become part of the church, many would turn on Jesus and not heed His words, and would experience the day of vengeance, and not escape.

 

[Davy]

The language of scripture tells us that the "Great Tribulation" has long since passed. Those "days of vengeance" called "the Great Tribulation" and "great distress in the land and wrath upon THIS people" (Israelites in Luke 21:22-23 cp. Matt. 24:21) came upon the first-century generation of those who had rejected Christ and put Him to death. "His blood be on us and our children" was a blood-oath that caused the "days of vengeance" from God to descend upon that first-century generation of Israelites - and not any other generation or location since then.

I disagree, the time of "great tribulation" is not past history. Instead, it is nearly upon us today with the devil's "one world government" globalist movement which is the beast of Revelation 13:1.

Man's seminary ideas of Preterism and Historicism came about from the wrong belief of some early Christians that thought when Jerusalem and the temple was destroyed in 70 A.B. by the Romans, that that meant Christ's Kingdom had literally come on earth then. Some were even deceived so far into that thinking that they treated Christ's forty day visit to His disciples after His resurrection as His 2nd coming (called Full Preterism). That's all... deception.

Christ's Kingdom of The Spirit is what Jesus brought by His death and resurrection, NOT His future 'literal' Kingdom on earth of the world to come. That future Kingdom on earth is still pending today until He returns, literally, back to this earth as written in Zechariah 14. Anyone that believes Christ's Kingdom of the world to come is even part of this present 2nd world earth age is deceived, as this 2nd world earth age is ordained by God to be destroyed by fire, as written in 2 Peter 3 and at the end of Hebrews 12. Thus God has given Satan to be over this 2nd world earth age, which is what the final beast kingdom of Revelation 13:1 is about which Jesus will destroy at His future return.

I should think you would be grateful that this unprecedented period of the "days of vengeance" and "Great Tribulation" is not a fate which you yourself will suffer.

God's Word in Luke 21:22 reveals the "days of vengeance" is when ALL Bible prophecy for this present 2nd world earth age is fulfilled.

And I showed Jesus' quote from Isaiah 61 at the start of His Ministry per Luke 4, as He closed the Book of Isaiah without reading the last phrase of Isaiah 61:2, "day of vengeance", which is about His future 2nd coming. So that's two Bible witnesses that the "days of vengeance" is for the day of Christ's future coming.

You are misquoting me. Daniel 12:11-13 and that 1,335th day was fulfilled on AD 70's Pentecost day at Jerusalem. That was Christ's SECOND coming - not the first coming. The two events Daniel 11:11 predicted which took place in the same season of time in AD 66 started the 1,335 day countdown which came to an end in AD 70's Pentecost day when Christ returned to the Mount of Olives. Josephus recorded the timing for when Daniel 11:11's two predicted events took place in AD 66, without even knowing that he was doing so.

I am not misquoting you. You are ADDING man's doctrine to that Daniel 12 Scripture, because all the Daniel Scripture witnesses show the final Antichrist's working is in the last 1260 day period of the Daniel 9:27 final "one week" (7 years). And Daniel 8 especially reveals the end of this 2nd world earth age at the end of the 2300 day period given there, because the cleansing of the sanctuary idea does not begin until Christ's future return.

So that 1335 misplacement you did is not YOUR idea, it is a doctrine others came up with that you follow.

When Christ predicted that "ALL these things" in the entire list of disastrous events from Luke 21:8-35 was "ABOUT TO come to pass" (including His coming return in great power and glory), this is what the import of the original Greek tells us. If you don't care to consult translations that correctly include the meaning of the original languages, that is your problem, not mine. It used to be my problem also, but not anymore.

Here is what Lord Jesus said...

Matt 24:33-34
33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
KJV

That phrase He said, "all these things", means ALL those SIGNS of the END He was giving there in His Olivet discourse. The FINAL generation on earth will SEE all... those SIGNS. And what is the final SIGN... Jesus gave in His Olivet discourse? The SIGN of His future coming!

Have we seen... Jesus' future coming today?? NO! of course not. For all those SIGNS He gave, it would mean Lord Jesus has ALREADY RETURNED today! Those pushing that LIE of course are either grossly deceived by the devil, or they work for the devil.