the Olivet Discourse understood

[Randy Kluth]

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:....

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.

So you're clairvoyant? And you say you're not on an ego-trip? You're going to teach us all how to understand the 25th Ammendment in a way that's easy so all of us simpletons can understand. But you're not on an ego-trip? Maybe you just can't see how you're coming across?

##1--don't assume that someone who has just brought up the issue of the 25th Ammendment doesn't understand what it is, and must be told what it is in simple language!
#2--don't say you know the future. You don't! You're don't control the future.

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.

I'm just holding up a mirror in front of you. You can admire yourself or get real--your choice.
#3--don't call people stupid when you don't know who they are. I may or may not be stupid. But you don't really know, do you? And I'm certainly not stupid just because I don't listen to an egomaniac.

 

[Randy Kluth]

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

Yes, that's obvious. In all 3 cases the destruction of the Temple is the object of the Discourse.

But according to Jesus they had not even begun yet.

What do you base this on? Why wouldn't you see Jesus as saying that these are preliminary signs of the impending judgment in 70 AD? I don't see him projecting these signs as far off into the distant future. Rather, he treats them as if they are already happening, sort of building up in a crescendo.

For example, Jesus had already upbraided that generation of Jews for being phonies, for being internally lawless. The sin was already happening that was leading towards a greater display of hatred towards Jesus and towards his Disciples. These were some of the signs for which Jerusalem would be judged in 70 AD. The conditions of famine and earthquake merely confirmed God's displeasure with the Jewish society, as well as with pagan society.

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

It wasn't a parable at all! Jesus used a metaphor, that of Child Birth, to describe how before the Birth there are signs of the impending Birth. The Birth was a miscarriage that took place in 70 AD. The Birth Pains were the preliminary signs of Jewish Sin, Divine Displeasure, and rumors of an impending invasion.

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

It is not false to say that the pagan Roman Army was an abomination in the precinct of the Jewish sanctuary, and even in and around the holy city of Jerusalem. It was holy due to its call, though not in its present moral state.

And so, to the Jews pagan Roman soldiers, who worshiped their pagan eagle idols on their standards, were an abomination by the very definition of that word! What is false about that?

These abominable soldiers were used by God to desolate Jerusalem and the Temple. God did the same to Jerusalem in the days of Jeremiah when he called for the horrible idolatrous Babylonians to come in and punish Israel. God quite frankly said that He was using horrible abominable people to judge Israel because they, as a people called to holiness, had been acting abominably.

Hab 1.6 I am raising up the Babylonians,
that ruthless and impetuous people,
who sweep across the whole earth
to seize dwellings not their own.

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

I don't agree. Jesus was, it appears, actually interpreting Dan 9 for us. The People of the prince to come were an army that would surround Jerusalem to destroy the "city and the sanctuary." It was the abomination that causes desolation.

You are confusing this AoD with the same term applied elsewhere to Antiochus 4. He was the one who also came in, an abominable idolater, who desolated the people by murdering them en mass. And he placed an idol in the Temple, committing sacrilege against it. He did not destroy the Temple, but he killed many people who wanted to properly worship at the Temple.

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.

Yes, definitely. It's a matter of historical record. And the context for Jesus' statements is clear. If you've been brainwashed into thinking the AoD is an idol, then you will of course reject the idea that it is an Army. But Dan 9 indicates it is an army, the "people" of the prince to come who will destroy "the city and the sanctuary." That is an *army,* and not an idol. They are abominable because they are pagans--not because they are a lifeless object that is worshiped.

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),

Sorry, Matthew is saying the same thing. Jerusalem and the Temple are the same place. Got to go now--I'll try to finish later.

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.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes, that's obvious. In all 3 cases the destruction of the Temple is the object of the Discourse.

What do you base this on? Why wouldn't you see Jesus as saying that these are preliminary signs of the impending judgment in 70 AD? I don't see him projecting these signs as far off into the distant future. Rather, he treats them as if they are already happening, sort of building up in a crescendo.

For example, Jesus had already upbraideJesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many. 6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of birth pains.d that generation of Jews for being phonies, for being internally lawless. The sin was already happening that was leading towards a greater display of hatred towards Jesus and towards his Disciples. These were some of the signs for which Jerusalem would be judged in 70 AD. The conditions of famine and earthquake merely confirmed God's displeasure with the Jewish society, as well as with pagan society.

Jesus was not talking about wars, famines, earthquakes and such that had anything to do with "God's displeasure with Jewish society". Jesus was talking about global things there, not things local to Jerusalem.

Matthew 24:4 Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many. 6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of birth pains.

Jesus is talking about wars, famines and earthquakes happening in other places in the world. Why would that be a sign of impending judgment on Jerusalem? I believe that you're missing that Jesus started out answering the question about His second coming and the end of the age in verses 4-14 before transitioning to talking about what would happen in 70 AD in verse 15. Things that were happening globally would be an indication of the approach of His second coming, not Jerusalem's judgment in 70 AD.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Yes, that's obvious. In all 3 cases the destruction of the Temple is the object of the Discourse.

What do you base this on? Why wouldn't you see Jesus as saying that these are preliminary signs of the impending judgment in 70 AD? I don't see him projecting these signs as far off into the distant future. Rather, he treats them as if they are already happening, sort of building up in a crescendo.

How does he do this?

He said, when you see these things, the end is not yet. They did not see them in his day.. they have not been set yet even till this day

For example, Jesus had already upbraided that generation of Jews for being phonies, for being internally lawless. The sin was already happening that was leading towards a greater display of hatred towards Jesus and towards his Disciples. These were some of the signs for which Jerusalem would be judged in 70 AD. The conditions of famine and earthquake merely confirmed God's displeasure with the Jewish society, as well as with pagan society.

But he is talking about events. Not symbols.. When you see things things happen. But the end is not yet. It is the begining of sorrows.

It wasn't a parable at all! Jesus used a metaphor, that of Child Birth, to describe how before the Birth there are signs of the impending Birth. The Birth was a miscarriage that took place in 70 AD. The Birth Pains were the preliminary signs of Jewish Sin, Divine Displeasure, and rumors of an impending invasion.

It was not symbols at all. The only metaphors was to show how these events would take place. Like birth pangs they will get stronger and stronger and more intense the closer you get to the next event

It is not false to say that the pagan Roman Army was an abomination in the precinct of the Jewish sanctuary, and even in and around the holy city of Jerusalem. It was holy due to its call, though not in its present moral state.

Its still not an abomination of desolation.

The only real example we have is the first gentile king who did this. Antiochus epiphanies slaughtered a pig in the holy place causes sacrifice and burnt offering to cease.

Use this as your example.. then apply it to daniel 8 This even willl happen in the middle of a 7 year period of a7 year covenant made by a future prince, Whose people destroyed rome in 70 AD

And so, to the Jews pagan Roman soldiers, who worshiped their pagan eagle idols on their standards, were an abomination by the very definition of that word! What is false about that?

But its still not an abomination fo desolation and it still was not standing in the holy place..

We need to listen carefully to what Jesus said, even he said he who has ears let him hear.

These abominable soldiers were used by God to desolate Jerusalem and the Temple. God did the same to Jerusalem in the days of Jeremiah when he called for the horrible idolatrous Babylonians to come in and punish Israel. God quite frankly said that He was using horrible abominable people to judge Israel because they, as a people called to holiness, had been acting abominably.

Hab 1.6 I am raising up the Babylonians,
that ruthless and impetuous people,
who sweep across the whole earth
to seize dwellings not their own.]\

Its still not an abomination of desolation. It does not fulfill Daniels prophecy or what Jesus said in matt 24.

I don't agree. Jesus was, it appears, actually interpreting Dan 9 for us. The People of the prince to come were an army that would surround Jerusalem to destroy the "city and the sanctuary." It was the abomination that causes desolation.

No

He said the people of the prince will destroy the city, and it would be left desolate until war desolations are determined.

THEN he will confirm a covenant with many for 1 week (7 years) but in Ythe middle of the week comes the abomination of desolation

an events Jesus said when you see it standing in the holy place. Run

There was no such event in 70 AD.

You are confusing this AoD with the same term applied elsewhere to Antiochus 4. He was the one who also came in, an abominable idolater, who desolated the people by murdering them en mass. And he placed an idol in the Temple, committing sacrilege against it.

THIS IS THE ABOMINATION THAT CAUSES DESOLATION

Not yelling but tryign to point out context.

The abomination by defenition is an idol or unclean thing

That unclean thing causes desolation. Not destruction, it rendered it unclean, rendering it desolate

He did not destroy the Temple, but he killed many people who wanted to properly worship at the Temple.

Your right, Niether will the future prince who places this new abomination of desolation in the temple.. That is my point, and Jesus point.

Yes, definitely. It's a matter of historical record. And the context for Jesus' statements is clear. If you've been brainwashed into thinking the AoD is an idol,

Oh So I am brainwashed..

lol. How can we have any real conversation? get real man

I interpret the words as written. An abomination (unclean thing or idol) that renders desolate the holy place.

If that is called brainwashing whatever,

I could say You have been brainwashed that it means destruction.. But what good will that do.

You have not even interpreted the word properly

then you will of course reject the idea that it is an Army. But Dan 9 indicates it is an army, the "people" of the prince to come who will destroy "the city and the sanctuary." That is an *army,* and not an idol.

I never said it was.

This is the next event AFTER messiah is killed..

And daniel is told. The city will remain desolate until a time determined. It is still desolate till this day

The next event is a 7 year covenant made by a future prince for 1 week (7 years)

I just take daniel by what he said.

They are abominable because they are pagans--not because they are a lifeless object that is worshiped.

It still is not an abomination which causes desolation standing in a holy place rendering it unclean.

Sorry, Matthew is saying the same thing. Jerusalem and the Temple are the same place. Got to go now--I'll try to finish later.

No, he is not saying the same thing.

But if you think so. I thin k we have determined you will nto changed,,and you think I am brainwashed so good day. There Is no need to continue when you think your god and your right and everyone else is wrong..

 

[Randy Kluth]

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),

I got interrupted today, so I'll have to finish my response now. As I said, Matthew, Mark, and Luke are all giving an account of the *exact same Discourse.* There are no significant differences that would distinguish the Temple from the city of Jerusalem where it was located. All authors knew the reference Jesus made was to Dan 9 where we are told that both the "city and the sanctuary" would be destroyed by the "people of the prince to come," which is obviously an army.

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.

There were two approaches to Jerusalem by the Roman army, the 1st under Cestius Gallus in 66, which failed to break through into Jerusalem. This was a warning sign that Jerusalem was about to fall, and gave time for Christians to escape before the 2nd Roman advance came in 70 AD, which was successful. Those who failed to leave immediately after 66 AD would've had to leave without turning back for anything before getting stuck inside the gates of Jerusalem.

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

Jerusalem is still oppressed to the present day. The West Bank Arab population claims half of Jerusalem for their own capital, including the site of the Jewish Temple.

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..

Yes, people seem to have been trying to extinguish the Jewish People for hundreds of years. Hitler made a particularly strong effort. Few have tried to consolidate the Jewish People in their old homeland in Palestine.

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

The Roman Army was the Abomination of Desolation, as described in Dan 9--the people of the prince to come, who would desolate the city and the sanctuary. This is the blueprint that Jesus operated from.

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.

The city of Jerusalem is where the Temple was located and was called the "Holy City." So the entire area in which the Temple was located, including the city of Jerusalem, was called "the Holy Place." This is not a reference to the area inside the Temple called the "Holy Place." Jesus said the Temple, with its Holy Place, would be utterly destroyed.

So Jesus was talking about pagans coming in to the area of Jerusalem, a holy place, to destroy the Temple, and not simply to commit desecration there, as Antiochus 4 had done.

 

[Randy Kluth]

How does he do this?

He said, when you see these things, the end is not yet. They did not see them in his day.. they have not been set yet even till this day

How do signs of an impending destruction of Jerusalem take place? They just do. God shows His displeasure with Jewish sins by sending earthquakes and famines. And then He warns the Jewish People about judgment coming upon them for their many sins by allowing them to hear rumblings of war coming from afar. And he clearly points out their sins so they know what they are being judged for.

All these things were to happen in the 1st generation of Christianity, and not toward the end of the age. "The end is not yet." These signs belonged to something that Jesus was zeroing in on, namely the destruction of Jerusalem in that generation. It would lead to a long period of Jewish cursing in exile until the very end of the age, when Messiah would return.

But he is talking about events. Not symbols.. When you see things things happen. But the end is not yet. It is the begining of sorrows.

When did I call these things "symbols?"

It was not symbols at all. The only metaphors was to show how these events would take place. Like birth pangs they will get stronger and stronger and more intense the closer you get to the next event

Who is referring to symbols? News of international warfare were indications that God was stirring up trouble for nations deserving of judgment. Israel itself was deserving of judgment. I never mentioned "symbols!"

Its still not an abomination of desolation.

The only real example we have is the first gentile king who did this. Antiochus epiphanies slaughtered a pig in the holy place causes sacrifice and burnt offering to cease.

Antiochus 4 was an example of an Abomination of Desolation because as a pagan king he was for the Jews an "abomination." He had no business entering into God's holy place in Jerusalem. He committed desolation by murdering thousands of Jews.

The Roman Army was another Abomination of Desolation which did the same things. It was an abominable pagan kingdom that entered into the holy area of Jerusalem, defiling it, and ultimately committing desolation by murdering thousands of Jews.

Use this as your example.. then apply it to daniel 8 This even willl happen in the middle of a 7 year period of a7 year covenant made by a future prince, Whose people destroyed rome in 70 AD

Dan 8 referred to Antiochus 4--not to the Roman army.

But its still not an abomination fo desolation and it still was not standing in the holy place..

See above.

Its still not an abomination of desolation. It does not fulfill Daniels prophecy or what Jesus said in matt 24.

I believe it does.

No

He said the people of the prince will destroy the city, and it would be left desolate until war desolations are determined.

The prophecy in Dan 9 indicates that the desolation of the city and the sanctuary was determined.

THEN he will confirm a covenant with many for 1 week (7 years) but in Ythe middle of the week comes the abomination of desolation

Yes. The 70th Week was accomplished in the middle of that Week. Temple offerings were ended by God when the veil was rent. That was caused when the Romans had Jesus executed.

an events Jesus said when you see it standing in the holy place. Run

There was no such event in 70 AD.

Yes there was. Any stragglers left after 66 AD would've run when they heard the Romans were returning in 70 AD. They believed Jesus, but just hadn't left immediately. Some had to pray over moving their pregnant wives, etc.

The abomination by defenition is an idol or unclean thing

Words mean what they mean in the context they are used. There is no single static meaning or application for the term. If the context changes, so does the meaning.

I could say You have been brainwashed that it means destruction.. But what good will that do.

Yes you could say I was brainwashed too. However, there is a reason I said this, and it was not meant as an insult, although I could understand if you thought that's what I meant. I said it because this is a very old issue, going back into the Early Church. Many of the Church Fathers and early commentators thought as you did, that the AoD had to be an unholy object. That is often what the term refers to.

So I had to ask myself, "Why is this such a confusing issue for so many for so long?" And I realized it was because of the basic confusion in Daniel between two similar events, which Daniel ends his book with, the 3.5 years of Antichrist's Reign and the 1290 days of Antiochus 4's reign.

Even Daniel did not fully understand these things. But we can piece things together today and understand that these are two distinct events, one to happen in the last days, and one happening well before Jesus came the 1st time.

It is just as easy to confuse the term "Abomination of Desolation" when it is used twice for two different events, thinking it is a term that can only mean an "idolatrous object" and can only be applied to one event, to Antiochus 4's desecration of the Temple.

But I've shown you how this can be looked at quite differently and still be consistent. The AoD does not have to be just an "object," but can be applied, with the proper context, to an idolatrous army. In context that's what we have in Dan 9--an army destroying Jerusalem and the Temple. And this is precisely how Jesus interpreted it in Luke 21.

To try to explain some of the problems by claiming Matthew and Mark are describing something different from Luke when all three were relating the exact same Discourse seems ludicrous, to say the least. I hope you'll give some thought to this.

This is the next event AFTER messiah is killed..

And daniel is told. The city will remain desolate until a time determined. It is still desolate till this day

The next event is a 7 year covenant made by a future prince for 1 week (7 years)

No, a covenant is "confirmed" for the final Week, which is actually completed in a half Week. This Rome did by crucifying Christ, confirming God's covenant of atonement for His people.

It was after Jesus' death that the Temple and the city were destroyed in that very generation, as Jesus himself said. And this led to an entire age of Jewish exile and desolation, the Jews being generally under a curse in their unbelief and disobedience to God. And yes, this continues to the present day, since only a remnant of the people ever convert to Jesus.

But if you think so. I thin k we have determined you will nto changed,,and you think I am brainwashed so good day. There Is no need to continue when you think your god and your right and everyone else is wrong..

Not at all. I've had the same beliefs you have. We're all trying to work this out together, to believe the truth. I don't claim to know I'm right at all. I've just been working at this for many years. The roadblocks I've run into were due to meanings that were fastened to words when such words should never be fixed as such.

I know about words because I've become familiar with the problems of interpretation, and have a brother who is very good with language, including biblical languages--not an expert, but he's very studious and honest. The brainwash isn't what you've done, but what others may have done to us. But I can be wrong.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Jesus was not talking about wars, famines, earthquakes and such that had anything to do with "God's displeasure with Jewish society". Jesus was talking about global things there, not things local to Jerusalem.

I disagree. The larger context of this Discourse indicated that God was bringing judgment against Jerusalem in that generation for the sin of rejecting their Messiah, as well as for many other sins.

Luke 19.41 As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42 and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. 43 The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44 They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.”

Matthew 24:4 Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many. 6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of birth pains.

Jesus is talking about wars, famines and earthquakes happening in other places in the world. Why would that be a sign of impending judgment on Jerusalem?

The Jews were warned under the Law that disobedience would lead to invasions from foreign lands. The rumblings of distant wars were an early warning of impending judgment. The Jews were called to repent as individuals, even if the majority had hardened their hearts.

I believe that you're missing that Jesus started out answering the question about His second coming and the end of the age in verses 4-14 before transitioning to talking about what would happen in 70 AD in verse 15. Things that were happening globally would be an indication of the approach of His second coming, not Jerusalem's judgment in 70 AD.

Yes Jesus was asked about his 2nd Coming because, I think, his Disciples could not comprehend the prophecy of destruction coming upon Israel when they had been promised both a Messiah and his national salvation. So Jesus separated these issues into two, dealing with the main issue first, which was the destruction of Jerusalem.

And then he warned them that all judgment in the present age relates to the Kingdom of God which would come at the end of a long period of Jewish Diaspora. When the Son of Man comes, all will be eternally judged.

But this was a prophecy still in the OT era warning Israel primarily. It was a prophecy to the Jewish People, including the fate of unbelievers and the fate of believers among them. We can, however, apply the same principles in Christian nations where we may live, even as our own countries fall into apostasy and backsliding.

But until the Kingdom comes there would be false claims to God's Kingdom. Christians should have no illusions about experiencing paradise in the present age for any length of time. This is an age when the best of kingdoms fall. The job of Christianity is to get the warning out about God judging us in this day and age so that we may enter the Kingdom of God when it comes.

 

[Timtofly]

The Jews were warned under the Law that disobedience would lead to invasions from foreign lands. The rumblings of distant wars were an early warning of impending judgment. The Jews were called to repent as individuals, even if the majority had hardened their hearts.

You do realize they were already under Roman occupation, and the peace that affords?

The Romans were constantly at war someplace.

The destruction of Jerusalem was the result of civil war and infighting that was disrupting the peace in that part of the empire. The Jews destroyed their own homeland.

Israel was as much "cut off" as Jesus was. Not cast off and forgotten. Cut off from being a nation and world influence.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You do realize they were already under Roman occupation, and the peace that affords?

Of course I know that. Pompey conquered Jerusalem in 63 BC. Jewish stirrings of rebellion prompted Rome to send armies to Jerusalem to defeat sedition entirely, in 66 AD and in 70 AD.

Jesus warned that this was coming due to Israel's lack of devotion to God and rampant sin. The religion cloaked inward rebellion against God. And Jesus warned all Israel that this was coming so as to encourage repentance among those who were willing. This was perhaps even part of the Gospel message of the Apostles.