the Olivet Discourse understood

[GodsGrace]

Hi GodsGrace, nice choice of a screen name btw.

Matthew 24:34 is a part of the parable of the fig tree generation beginning in verse 32 that would not pass away without Jesus's return.

What I believe is that Jerusalem is the metaphoric fig tree. The reason being Jesus cursed a fig tree beside the road as He and the disciples were entering Jerusalem that Passover week which He would be crucified, Matthew 21:18-20. The cursed fig tree represented that particular generation , so we can rule out 70 AD for that reason, and also because Jesus has not yet to return.

In 1967, the Jew regained possession of Jerusalem. So if we take 1967 and add 70 years for a generation length (Psalms 90:10), we get 2037 as the year Jesus must return before then.

And if we go a step further and subtract 7 years for the 7 year 70 week of Daniel 9:27 to begin - we get no later than the end of 2030 that the 7 years begin.

So we are close.

Douggg
Yes! He has yet to return....herein lies the entire problem and reason for this thread.

So please clarify:
In your 2nd paragraph.....do you mean that the fig tree represented the Jews at THAT TIME, in which case it would be right since Jerusalem WAS destroyed in 70AD.

???

But I don't think that is what you're saying.

 

[Douggg]

Fixing dates again, I see? Bad idea!
The big problem here is that you're drawing the wrong conclusion. You're saying that because Christ didn't come within a generation of the "Fig Tree" that the Fig Tree could not have been the Israel of that generation?

Well, Jesus never said he was coming within the generation of the Fig Tree. He said "all these things" would happen within his generation, which was an implicit reference to what he had been talking about with respect to the main prophecy, namely the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. And that did indeed happen within a generation.

Randy, the main prophecy in Matthew 24 is Jesus's coming, not the destruction of the temple.

Matthew 24 3 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?

Jesus's coming in the clouds of heaven is in Matthew 24:30, as well as, Jesus saying when the sign of the Son of man in heaven will be.

In Matthew 24:32-34, Jesus gave the parable of the fig tree to know what the generation with be that will not pass away without His coming in the clouds of heaven.

---------------------------------------------------

Then in Matthew 24:35-39, Jesus spoke of the conditions in the world at the time of His coming.

37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

----------------------------------------------
In Matthew 24:40-42, Jesus spoke about the rapture, not knowing what hour, and to be ready.

40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

--------------------------------------------------

In Matthew 24:43-44, Jesus gave a parable about being ready for His coming for the rapture

--------------------------------------------------

In Matthew 24:45-51, Jesus gave another parable about being ready, and doing things for the cause of Christ. Rewards for them who do, and penalty for those who don't.

 

[Douggg]

Douggg
Yes! He has yet to return....herein lies the entire problem and reason for this thread.

So please clarify:
In your 2nd paragraph.....do you mean that the fig tree represented the Jews at THAT TIME, in which case it would be right since Jerusalem WAS destroyed in 70AD.

???

But I don't think that is what you're saying.

I went back and edited that post.

"The cursed fig tree represented that particular generation because they produced no fruit, so we can rule out 70 AD for that reason, and also because Jesus has not yet to return."

 

[Douggg]

Fixing dates again, I see? Bad idea!

The one variable in parable of the fig tree is the length of a generation. In my numbers, I used 70 years as that is what is in Psalms 90:10. But it also says in Psalms 90:10 - if by strength, 80 years

10 The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away.

King David died at the age of 70 years old.

------------------------------------------------------------

The 7 year 70th week of Daniel 9:27 coincides to being right after the Gog/Magog event of Ezekiel 39. And the 7 years that follow in Ezekiel 39:9.

So those nations, in Ezekiel 38, lining up is one of the things we can watch for. Russia appears to be the main military might, and Ezekiel 38:4, God says he will turn Gog "back" and drag Gog into the attack on Israel.

Right now Russia is engaged in the war with Ukraine. Should Russia disengage and starts bringing its troops back to Russia, that could be the precursor to the Gog/Magog event.

Also, keep an eye on Zelensky as possibly being the little horn person. Ukraine is near to becoming a full EU member nation. Should Zelensky become leader over a panel of ten EU leaders, that would be big.

Too early to tell for certain though if Zelensky is that person.

 

[GodsGrace]

I went back and edited that post.

"The cursed fig tree represented that particular generation because they produced no fruit, so we can rule out 70 AD for that reason, and also because Jesus has not yet to return."

So BY THAT GENERATION,,,,,you mean the Jews?
The RACE of the Jews.

 

[Douggg]

So BY THAT GENERATION,,,,,you mean the Jews?
The RACE of the Jews.

The Jews living in Jerusalem, who cried out to crucify Jesus.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Respectfully, I've looked at this idea but have had to reject it for the following reasons. (It's okay--we can disagree.)

1) 3 different versions of the same Discourse would tell the same story--just from different angles. If each story told a different part of the same Discourse, they would not really be the same Discourse as a whole--they would only be different portions of the same Discourse.
2) The different versions indicate, to me, that the authors are only choosing to frame the conversation using words that they are comfortable with in conveying the same ideas. And so, synonyms are used. The few elements that are unique to any particular version are rare and do not change the tone or message in all 3 versions. If anything the unique elements in one version may help us better understand a parallel account in another version.

I've personally done an extensive study on each version, comparing every single element. So I've done my homework. For me, the critical things to understand are that the main theme of the Discourse is the destruction of the Temple in Jesus' generation, following his death, of course. And there follows a "time of Distress," defined as an age-long condition of Israel being cursed for having abandoned the morality of the Law and their own Messiah.

Ok, We agree, the destruction of the temple is found in both cases.

If we understand these things as such, I think the whole Discourse makes sense. The Birth Pains reflect Israel's poor moral condition and God's distaste for it in the time prior to the destruction of the Temple.

But according to Jesus they had not even begun yet.

And why would we interpret it as jesus speaking a parable?

The Abomination of Desolation is the destruction of the Temple itself.

That is a false interpretation. The temple being destroyed would be a desolation. Not an abomination (unclean thing or idle) which makes desolate.

also. remember, jesus said they would see this abominable object standing in the holy place.. It is a thing, not an event.

The entire message is that God will indeed restore the nation of Israel, but will not do so until He sends the Son of Man from heaven at the end of the age. Israel will continue under judgment because the majority of Jews will reject the message of Christian repentance.

yes, We agree.

In the meantime, Christians suffer, but will also find relief when the Son of Man returns. All this is in the Discourse.

yes, Again I agree

I think it's critical to understand a particular confusion that arises in Matt 24.26-28, where Jesus said that the Son of Man will *not* come before his revelation from heaven. The time he said this both believers and unbelievers were hoping for Messianic deliverance. So Jesus warned that the vultures will gather 1st, and that Israel's "great distress" must take place throughout the present age before his Return in glory.

Matt 24.26 “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28 Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.

I think we need to relook at the events.

In luke, Jesus speaks of the destruction of the city.. "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near"

thjis literally happened in 70 AD when the armies of Titus surrounded the city. and as Jesus said, not one stone was standing, we know for a fact that the city was raised so deeply. that according to Josephus, anyone looking at it would nto even know a city existed before.

While in matthew, it is not the city, it is the temple. 15 “Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand),

This is different, there is no army surrounding the city. this is an event which catches everyone by suprise. If we go by luke account, the people should have ran long before anythign happened to the temple. Because the event was the city being surrounded.

In Luke, Jesus says that the city will remain trampled until the time of the gentiles is fulfilled. when Christ returns.

In matthew, Jesus says immediately following, there will be a period of great tribulation which has not been seen before or after. it sill be so severe, if Jesus did not return, no flesh (life) would survive. We are talking about an extinction event..

another issue is there was no abomination of desolation in 70 ad (lukes account)

Jesus said in matt 24. You will see it standing in the holy place.

this was not even possible in 70 AD.. the holy place was deep inside the temple. If Titus or anyone else placed an abomination which causes desolation there. it would be impossible for everyone to see.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

How many Olivet Discourses are there? One or two? One, right? So, what we can discern from reading all 3 of the Olivet Discourse accounts (Matthew 24-25, Mark 13, Luke 21) is that Jesus was asked 2 or 3 questions (depending on whether you consider there to be separate questions about His coming and the end of the age). With that in mind, whether Mark and Luke recorded all 2 or 3 questions is irrelevant. We know what questions Jesus asked at that time. So, there is no reason to think that not all of the questions were answered in each Olivet Discourse account.

Or we can discern that Jesus said a bunch of things and the particular author who wrote it wrote about one event. which the other wrote about the other event./

Looks like you missed on question there.

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?

I highlighted the first question in red and the second question in blue. How did you miss the second question? Was it on purpose?

How did I miss it?

I not only mentioned it. I spoke of both cases what it meant.

Jesus was asked this in Matthew 24:3 "what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?". Some, like me, see that as one question, but you see it was two questions. I don't think that matters much unless someone decides that His coming doesn't happen at the end of the age. But, the point is that you turn that into two questions. So, why do you not also see "when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?" as two questions? Where is the consistency in that. It appears that you are allowing doctrinal bias to influence how you are interpreting these verses.

There were 2 questions in luke, 3 in Mathew. please try to pay attention.

Now, keep in mind that the disciples asked their questions based on their perspectives at that particular time. They had not yet received the Holy Spirit and they did not yet understand at that time what was going to happen in the future. So, from their perspective at the time, they likely would have assumed that His second coming and the end of the age would occur at the same time that the temple buildings were destroyed. So, what Luke records is most likely what they actually asked while Matthew worded the questions the way he did to make it clear that the things they asked about were actually two different things altogether (even if they didn't realize it at the time) that would be fulfilled at two entirely different times.


We see two different answers because there's only 2 different time periods involved in those questions. One is 70 AD and the other is His future coming at the end of the age. The destruction of the temple buildings is one of the things He talked about. That's what the first question relates to. And the other questions relate to the timing of His coming and the end of the age and He answers that separately.


There's absolutely no reason (except doctrinal bias) to think that answer isn't recorded in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 as well.


Nope. We know what the questions are by reading all 3 accounts, so there's no reason to think that the answers to all of the questions can't be found in all 3 accounts.

I am not sure what your saying.. Please try to be more clear.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I’m gonna go watch Trump kick ass right now

I don’t have time for a retarded conversation. I told you five times Jesus said things and you keep saying buildings.

Does your mommy know you are using her computer and talking like this to people? Why do you have such a low opinion of Mark who recorded that Jesus said "these great buildings"?

Mark 13:2 “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

If Mark can be trusted, and I'm sure he can, then we can know that "these things" were "these great buildings". But, go ahead and keep acting like a child that no one can take seriously if that's what you prefer.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

How did I miss it?

I not only mentioned it. I spoke of both cases what it meant.

You said there was one question in Luke 21. But, there are two. Are you just pretending to not know what I'm talking about?

This is what you said:

In Luke, he was asked 1 question.

when will these things be.

You said "In Luke, he was asked 1 question". Now, you are denying that.

There were 2 questions in luke, 3 in Mathew. please try to pay attention.

Are you being serious here? You specifically said there was one question in the Luke account. If you're going to be this dishonest, then I'm not going to waste any more time with you.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

You said there was one question in Luke 21. But, there are two. Are you just pretending to not know what I'm talking about?

I see now. I meant to say there were two. Thats why I thought i did. thank you for pointing that out to me,

This is what you said:

You said "In Luke, he was asked 1 question". Now, you are denying that.



Are you being serious here? You specifically said there was one question in the Luke account. If you're going to be this dishonest, then I'm not going to waste any more time with you.

yada yada yada.

can you speak to the rest of what I said.

 

[Stash]

Who needs to listen to you? You think you make the world turn? I've been fighting pro-Trump, anti-Democrat since well before Trump won the presidency. Are you on some kind of ego-drug?

Anyway, I'm very happy to hear you're on the Trump team, as I am. I watch Dan Bongino every day on Rumble, if you want hard-core, Pro-Trump, anti-Biden rhetoric that's perhaps a little rough.

As to the 70 AD thing, it's like they say--you can walk and chew gum at the same time. You can believe the AoD was 70 AD and you can believe in a future Antichrist at the same time. You have to take each prophecy on its own merits.

The Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution deals with presidential succession and disability. Here are the key points in an easy-to-understand format:





1. Presidential Succession:


- If the President dies, resigns, or is removed from office, the Vice President becomes President.





2. Vice Presidential Vacancy:


- If the Vice President's office becomes vacant, the President nominates a new Vice President. This nominee must be confirmed by a majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.





3. Presidential Disability:


- If the President is unable to perform their duties (due to illness or other reasons), they can voluntarily transfer power to the Vice President by informing Congress in writing. The Vice President then serves as Acting President until the President declares in writing that they are able to resume their duties.





4. Involuntary Transfer of Power:


- If the President is unable or unwilling to declare their inability to perform duties, the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet can declare the President incapacitated by informing Congress in writing. The Vice President then becomes Acting President.


- The President can contest this declaration. If the President does so, Congress must decide the issue. If two-thirds of both the House and the Senate agree that the President is unable to perform their duties, the Vice President continues as Acting President. If not, the President resumes their duties.





These provisions ensure a clear and orderly transition of power in situations where the President cannot fulfill their responsibilities.


No, I am not on an Ego trip. I just know what’s gonna happen next. Biden is going to get removed from office and we’re going to go into WW three.

If you’re too stupid to listen to me, and prepare for it I don’t care. I told you I have been studying.Q
And follow politics very closely. This is all been predicted. But it appears all you’re worried about is my ego.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution deals with presidential succession and disability. Here are the key points in an easy-to-understand format:





1. Presidential Succession:


- If the President dies, resigns, or is removed from office, the Vice President becomes President.





2. Vice Presidential Vacancy:


- If the Vice President's office becomes vacant, the President nominates a new Vice President. This nominee must be confirmed by a majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.





3. Presidential Disability:


- If the President is unable to perform their duties (due to illness or other reasons), they can voluntarily transfer power to the Vice President by informing Congress in writing. The Vice President then serves as Acting President until the President declares in writing that they are able to resume their duties.





4. Involuntary Transfer of Power:


- If the President is unable or unwilling to declare their inability to perform duties, the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet can declare the President incapacitated by informing Congress in writing. The Vice President then becomes Acting President.


- The President can contest this declaration. If the President does so, Congress must decide the issue. If two-thirds of both the House and the Senate agree that the President is unable to perform their duties, the Vice President continues as Acting President. If not, the President resumes their duties.





These provisions ensure a clear and orderly transition of power in situations where the President cannot fulfill their responsibilities.


No, I am not on an Ego trip. I just know what’s gonna happen next. Biden is going to get removed from office and we’re going to go into WW three.

If you’re too stupid to listen to me, and prepare for it I don’t care. I told you I have been studying.Q
And follow politics very closely. This is all been predicted. But it appears all you’re worried about is my ego.

the sad part is the vice president is worse and more dangerous than he is. Many feel thats why he chose her, it would keep him from being impeached.. I tend to agree. that is why everyone is afraid to impeach him when he is 100 times more guilty than Trump ever thought of being

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I see now. I meant to say there were two. Thats why I thought i did. thank you for pointing that out to me,

So, who is the one who needs to pay attention then? Somehow you were mistaken that it was me.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

So, who is the one who needs to pay attention then? Somehow you were mistaken that it was me.

can you respond to the rest of what I said please..

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

can you respond to the rest of what I said please..

Oh, you'd like that, wouldn't you? But, would you even pay attention to it if I did?

Look, buddy, you make it clear that you have an agenda against anything I say by the way you talked to me in that other post. You are so quick to just dismiss everything I say that you tried to tell me that I wasn't paying attention when it was actually you not paying attention. I don't feel like playing these children's games with you anymore. Maybe I'll respond to the rest of what you said later, but it's hard to feel like talking to you is worth my time, knowing that you will most likely just immediately dismiss anything I say.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Oh, you'd like that, wouldn't you? But, would you even pay attention to it if I did?

Look, buddy, you make it clear that you have an agenda against anything I say by the way you talked to me in that other post. You are so quick to just dismiss everything I say that you tried to tell me that I wasn't paying attention when it was actually you not paying attention. I don't feel like playing these children's games with you anymore. Maybe I'll respond to the rest of what you said later, but it's hard to feel like talking to you is worth my time, knowing that you will most likely just immediately dismiss anything I say.

In other words you will not answer.

I made a mistake and appologized and confessed it.

Can you?

The disciples in luke 21 asked about one EVENT (My error)

5 Then, as some spoke of the temple, how it was [c]adorned with beautiful stones and donations, He said, 6 “These things which you see—the days will come in which not one stone shall be left upon another that shall not be thrown down.”

7 So they asked Him, saying, “Teacher, but when will these things be? And what sign will there be when these things are about to take place?”

I made the mistake and said one question. and did not say one event. And when you rsponded, I was thinking of two questions, not one event. ( a simple mistake)

where in Mathew they asked him about three things (three events)

And I also asked you where I missed it, I mentioned the event in Luke,. Did Jesus talk about any other event?



But its ok. I have come to expect this from you.. and you wonder I can not give you any ground, You offer nothing, you can not even properly interret what people say,

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

In other words you will not answer.

I knew that was coming. You are so predictable. I told you why I don't want to answer. Have I not answered your questions and addressed your points MANY times before? You know I have. So, don't act as if I'm afraid to answer your question this time. I most definitely am not.

I made a mistake and appologized and confessed it.

I see that you acknowledged your mistake, but I missed the apology. Where was that?

What you said came across like this:

"Oh, I made a mistake. Oops. Anyway, answer my question already."

You even later said "yada yada yada. can you speak to the rest of what I said.". What kind of apology is that? Can you stop the childish nonsense already? I'm looking to discuss these things with adults.

Can you?

Can I what? You come at me with condescending, childish nonsense all the time. I'm tired of it. If you can convince me that you will make a serious effort to stop doing that, then I will answer your questions.

The disciples in luke 21 asked about one EVENT (My error)

5 Then, as some spoke of the temple, how it was [c]adorned with beautiful stones and donations, He said, 6 “These things which you see—the days will come in which not one stone shall be left upon another that shall not be thrown down.”

7 So they asked Him, saying, “Teacher, but when will these things be? And what sign will there be when these things are about to take place?”

I made the mistake and said one question. and did not say one event. And when you rsponded, I was thinking of two questions, not one event. ( a simple mistake)

where in Mathew they asked him about three things (three events)

And I also asked you where I missed it, I mentioned the event in Luke,. Did Jesus talk about any other event?



But its ok. I have come to expect this from you.. and you wonder I can not give you any ground, You offer nothing, you can not even properly interret what people say,

You act as if you're apologizing and asking me again to address your questions and then you say what you said at the end here. You say I offer nothing. If that's what you think then why should I bother answering your questions and why would you care how I would answer your questions? Ridiculous. I have no interest in discussing anything with you any longer.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I knew that was coming. You are so predictable. I told you why I don't want to answer. Have I not answered your questions and addressed your points MANY times before? You know I have. So, don't act as if I'm afraid to answer your question this time. I most definitely am not.


I see that you acknowledged your mistake, but I missed the apology. Where was that?

What you said came across like this:

"Oh, I made a mistake. Oops. Anyway, answer my question already."

You even later said "yada yada yada. can you speak to the rest of what I said.". What kind of apology is that? Can you stop the childish nonsense already? I'm looking to discuss these things with adults.


Can I what? You come at me with condescending, childish nonsense all the time. I'm tired of it. If you can convince me that you will make a serious effort to stop doing that, then I will answer your questions.


You act as if you're apologizing and asking me again to address your questions and then you say what you said at the end here. You say I offer nothing. If that's what you think then why should I bother answering your questions and why would you care how I would answer your questions? Ridiculous. I have no interest in discussing anything with you any longer.

whatever dude. Please go away

I was not even talking to you. I was talking to someone else. You jumped into the middle of the conversation.

Good day sir

O said yada yada, because it is the same thing I get from you every time you even respond to me..

You want to boast that you got one up on me, Feel free. no sweat off my back

Good day.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

one more person in my ignore bin.