Typical questions people ask about the Olivet Discourse.

[covenantee]

What does Jesus mean by "the elect"?

His Church.

Romans 8:33
Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

Colossians 3:12
Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;

Titus 1:1
Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;

1 Peter 1:2
Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

1 Peter 5:13
The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.

 

[Davy]

You are confusing Jerusalem's torn down condition at the end of the war in AD 70 with whatever was built in Jerusalem during the following centuries since then.

No, I a m not confusing these things. You are failing to grasp what timing the SIGNS Jesus gave are for in His Olivet discourse, which are for the END of this world, not back in 70 A.D., nor any other previous time of history. And apparently, nor do you understand the idea of 'dual fulfillment' type Bible prophecy, of which Antiochus IV served as a 'type' for the final Antichrist that will appear in Jerusalem for the end of this world, working great signs and wonders. Those who deny that are Preterists and Historicists.

 

[Davy]

This thread was about asking questions rather than answering them. But thank-you anyway for your thoughtful responses.

But still, be very careful with listening to some here that don't really care that Jesus was showing His Church the seven main SIGNS of the END of this world leading up to His future return.

Those deceived come from the Preterist, Historicist, and Futurist camps of men's 'leaven' doctrines. They have succumbed to the moles among them that push the devil's teachings about Christ's Olivet discourse, trying to prevent Christ's servants from understanding and 'watching' those SIGNS He gave leading up to His future return.

 

[covenantee]

But still, be very careful with listening to some here that don't really care that Jesus was showing His Church the seven main SIGNS of the END of this world leading up to His future return.

Those deceived come from the Preterist, Historicist, and Futurist camps of men's 'leaven' doctrines. They have succumbed to the moles among them that push the devil's teachings about Christ's Olivet discourse, trying to prevent Christ's servants from understanding and 'watching' those SIGNS He gave leading up to His future return.

As a futurist, you're including yourself?

 

[3 Resurrections]

No, I a m not confusing these things. You are failing to grasp what timing the SIGNS Jesus gave are for in His Olivet discourse, which are for the END of this world, not back in 70 A.D., nor any other previous time of history.

Oh, I am very certain about scripture's timing of the Olivet Discourse events. Christ and the scriptures are very clear concerning the timing when these would be fulfilled. These events Christ said were for the "end of the AGE" (aionos) - not an end of this global world (oikoumenen or kosmos). This Matt. 24:3 verse uses the Greek word "aionos" meaning "the end of the AGE". And Christ spoke plainly that some of those standing in front of Him would not have died yet until they had seen Him coming in glory with the angels, to give rewards according to every man's works (Matthew 16:27-28).

Christ's words concerning the entire list of events from Luke 21:8 through verse 35 prior to His second coming return were a warning to His disciples, "Watch ye then, in every season, praying that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things (from Luke 21:8-35) that are ABOUT TO COME TO PASS, and to stand before the Son of Man." (YLT). This was going to be a chronological string of events that would crank up very soon for the disciples' generation to experience. They would culminate in Christ's second coming in AD 70, which would happen before that first-century generation had all died, just as Christ had promised.

We know from the book of Acts that the persecution Christ predicted for the disciples began almost as soon as Christ had ascended to heaven in Acts 1. This persecution by all men for those following Christ would persist and escalate in those years leading to the AD 66-70 Great Tribulation. That was the time when God began exacting those "days of vengeance" on those who had been the "betrayers and murderers" of His Son, and the ones who had persecuted and martyred His servants.

And apparently, nor do you understand the idea of 'dual fulfillment' type Bible prophecy, of which Antiochus IV served as a 'type' for the final Antichrist that will appear in Jerusalem for the end of this world, working great signs and wonders.

I've no problem seeing dual fulfillment in scripture (with examples such as "out of Egypt have I called my son", "They shall look on me whom they have pierced", Jerusalem's "second death" in AD 70, which was a virtual duplicate of the city's first death in 586 BC under the Babylonian invasion, etc.). But if you want to consider history's Antiochus IV as a type of the final Antichrist, Paul already wrote to the Thessalonians that this "Man of Lawlessness" and his restrainer were at that time in existence in his days. He reminded the Thessalonians that he had already told them in person of who this "Man of Lawlessness" was that was "already working". Paul had also informed them of who was then presently restraining this Man of Lawlessness from being openly manifested in those first-century days (2 Thess. 2:5-7).

For you to claim that this is a future Antichrist individual is to deny Paul's instructions to the Thessalonians of who that first-century Man of Lawlessness and his restrainer was back then. These individuals have not remained in existence 2,000 plus years since then. The Antichrist murdered his restrainer to have him "taken out of the way", and himself was shortly thereafter murdered in AD 66. You haven't got a clear idea of what an "antichrist" / "pseudo-christ" or a "false christ" was pretending to be. The Zealot cause was full of Messiah pretenders in those days, trying to present themselves as the fulfillment of Daniel's prophesied "Messiah the Prince" who was supposed to come at the beginning of the 70th week in AD 30.

All of these events written down have already been fulfilled. You and I are sharing and will share in part of those unwritten prophecies in Rev. 10:4 that were "sealed up" and dedicated to the generations following Christ's AD 70 return.

 

[covenantee]

Oh, I am very certain about scripture's timing of the Olivet Discourse events. Christ and the scriptures are very clear concerning the timing when these would be fulfilled. These events Christ said were for the "end of the AGE" (aionos) - not an end of this global world (oikoumenen or kosmos). This Matt. 24:3 verse uses the Greek word "aionos" meaning "the end of the AGE". And Christ spoke plainly that some of those standing in front of Him would not have died yet until they had seen Him coming in glory with the angels, to give rewards according to every man's works (Matthew 16:27-28).

Christ's words concerning the entire list of events from Luke 21:8 through verse 35 prior to His second coming return were a warning to His disciples, "Watch ye then, in every season, praying that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things (from Luke 21:8-35) that are ABOUT TO COME TO PASS, and to stand before the Son of Man." (YLT). This was going to be a chronological string of events that would crank up very soon for the disciples' generation to experience. They would culminate in Christ's second coming in AD 70, which would happen before that first-century generation had all died, just as Christ had promised.

We know from the book of Acts that the persecution Christ predicted for the disciples began almost as soon as Christ had ascended to heaven in Acts 1. This persecution by all men for those following Christ would persist and escalate in those years leading to the AD 66-70 Great Tribulation. That was the time when God began exacting those "days of vengeance" on those who had been the "betrayers and murderers" of His Son, and the ones who had persecuted and martyred His servants.

I've no problem seeing dual fulfillment in scripture (with examples such as "out of Egypt have I called my son", "They shall look on me whom they have pierced", Jerusalem's "second death" in AD 70, which was a virtual duplicate of the city's first death in 586 BC under the Babylonian invasion, etc.). But if you want to consider history's Antiochus IV as a type of the final Antichrist, Paul already wrote to the Thessalonians that this "Man of Lawlessness" and his restrainer were at that time in existence in his days. He reminded the Thessalonians that he had already told them in person of who this "Man of Lawlessness" was that was "already working". Paul had also informed them of who was then presently restraining this Man of Lawlessness from being openly manifested in those first-century days (2 Thess. 2:5-7).

For you to claim that this is a future Antichrist individual is to deny Paul's instructions to the Thessalonians of who that first-century Man of Lawlessness and his restrainer was back then. These individuals have not remained in existence 2,000 plus years since then. The Antichrist murdered his restrainer to have him "taken out of the way", and himself was shortly thereafter murdered in AD 66. You haven't got a clear idea of what an "antichrist" / "pseudo-christ" or a "false christ" was pretending to be. The Zealot cause was full of Messiah pretenders in those days, trying to present themselves as the fulfillment of Daniel's prophesied "Messiah the Prince" who was supposed to come at the beginning of the 70th week in AD 30.

All of these events written down have already been fulfilled. You and I are sharing and will share in part of those unwritten prophecies in Rev. 10:4 that were "sealed up" and dedicated to the generations following Christ's AD 70 return.

Insights of various Church Fathers and Apologists

Understanding the 'Little Horn' power of Prophecy in Daniel.

The claim is that the papacy is the Antichrist. So how does the papacy match the above sea beast, and how does the Papacy meet the criteria for being a replacement for Christ on earth? A counterfeit? There are many "antichrists" operating within the "Church" today. To single out one...

www.christianityboard.com

h/t Brakelite

 

[CadyandZoe]

His Church.

I assume that you mean, "the assembly of all true believers"? Why would it matter to his church whether the tribulation is shortened or not? Why would anyone who has been granted eternal life worry about an existential threat?

 

[3 Resurrections]

Insights of various Church Fathers and Apologists

Paul's and John's statements concerning the Antichrist / Man of Lawlessness hold precedence over any church father or apologist's opinion. Paul and John wrote that these antichrists and the Antichrist and the restrainer of the Man of Lawlessness were all in existence then in the first-century days. The papacy was a much later development in history. And the papacy does not fulfill the terms which John used to define the many antichrists or the spirit of antichrist in 1 & 2 John, or Paul's description in 2 Thess. 2 either. Or the particular actions of the "false christs" which Christ warned His disciples about in their day. When did anyone ever say of the papacy that it was "in the wilderness", and that people should gather there to follow him?

The Antichrist was a first-century main Zealot leader called Menahem who was the first to get into the temple in AD 66, "exalting himself" over all the other Messiah claimants as Israel's "King of the Jews" in AD 66. The very brightness of his coming into power was the very means of his own destruction, provoking other Messiah claimants to murder him and his followers in Jerusalem a few weeks later.

The Antichrist has been artificially inflated into a kind of superhuman, undefeatable enemy that has power over the entire globe, contrary to the way scripture presents this individual. It makes for flashy Chick tract content, but is mostly invented out of people's imaginations.

 

[grafted branch]

The very brightness of his coming into power was the very means of his own destruction, provoking other Messiah claimants to murder him and his followers in Jerusalem a few weeks later.

I’ve seen you bring this up on another forum, it is very interesting that the coming in 2 Thessalonians 2:8 is almost always associated with Christ’s coming but the surrounding verses indicate it’s the coming of the man of sin.

 

[covenantee]

Paul's and John's statements concerning the Antichrist / Man of Lawlessness hold precedence over any church father or apologist's opinion. Paul and John wrote that these antichrists and the Antichrist and the restrainer of the Man of Lawlessness were all in existence then in the first-century days. The papacy was a much later development in history. And the papacy does not fulfill the terms which John used to define the many antichrists or the spirit of antichrist in 1 & 2 John, or Paul's description in 2 Thess. 2 either. Or the particular actions of the "false christs" which Christ warned His disciples about in their day. When did anyone ever say of the papacy that it was "in the wilderness", and that people should gather there to follow him?

The Antichrist was a first-century main Zealot leader called Menahem who was the first to get into the temple in AD 66, "exalting himself" over all the other Messiah claimants as Israel's "King of the Jews" in AD 66. The very brightness of his coming into power was the very means of his own destruction, provoking other Messiah claimants to murder him and his followers in Jerusalem a few weeks later.

The Antichrist has been artificially inflated into a kind of superhuman, undefeatable enemy that has power over the entire globe, contrary to the way scripture presents this individual. It makes for flashy Chick tract content, but is mostly invented out of people's imaginations.

The seeds of the apostasy which would ultimately become manifest in the antichrist of the unholy Roman Empire were very much in existence in Paul's day. It fulfills all of the Scriptural descriptions thereof.

Paul, recognizing that the pagan Roman Empire was the hinderer, deliberately avoided identifying it so as not to arouse its attention unnecessarily.

Whom to believe?

1. You
or
2. Multiple Church Fathers and Apologists and all Reformers

Do you need a hint?

 

[covenantee]

I assume that you mean, "the assembly of all true believers"? Why would it matter to his church whether the tribulation is shortened or not? Why would anyone who has been granted eternal life worry about an existential threat?

Why did Paul and Peter identify the Church as the Elect?

 

[marks]

It matters much… for if one believes 70AD is what’s being spoke of then one must believe that generation is somehow still present.

Which brings us to the other meaning of genea, a people-group. This is the only meaning that actually fits the passage, begin "this" to Jesus, yet here at the end.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Hi all,
Our men's group is discussing the Olivet Discourse and in order to facilitate a good discussion, I would like to present a list of typical questions often asked about the subject. Can you help me think of questions to ask?

I already have three in mind.

Why does Luke talk about armies while Mark and Matthew talk about the Abomination of Desolation?​

What does Jesus mean by "the elect"?​

What does Jesus mean by "this generation?"​

Can you think of other questions that we typically ask? Our meeting is next week. I want to gather your questions and put them together with mine and make a list for our group to follow.

Thanks in advance. :)

Just tuning into this thread . . . how did your discussion go?

I'll give my answers even though late . . .

Why does Luke talk about armies while Mark and Matthew talk about the Abomination of Desolation?

In this particular respect, Luke gives Jesus prophecy concerning 70 AD and the destruction of Jerusalem, while Matthew records Jesus' prophecy of the end of the age.
What does Jesus mean by "the elect"?

The Chosen, and the Nations. The elect that Jesus referred to, Israel, the chosen nation.

What does Jesus mean by "this generation?"

Genea can mean "all those born in this time frame", or, "all those alive in this time frame", or, "those born from a common ancestor".

In saying, "This generation", Jesus indicates one close at hand, "this", yet states that it will not pass away until these things be fulfulled. Of the three possibilities, the only one that can be both close to Jesus, and there at the end, is "those born from a common ancestor", the Israelites.

This fits the context as He had just moments before prophesied that they would not all be destroyed before He returned.

Much love!

 

[3 Resurrections]

I’ve seen you bring this up on another forum, it is very interesting that the coming in 2 Thessalonians 2:8 is almost always associated with Christ’s coming but the surrounding verses indicate it’s the coming of the man of sin.

EXACTLY. It was not going to be the coming return of Christ in the clouds that would destroy the Man of Lawlessness. The language in 2 Thess. 2 shows that it would be the very brightness of the way the Man of Lawlessness "exalted himself" when he came into power that would be responsible for his own destruction. The splendor of his meteoric rise to power in Jerusalem created a jealous reaction from his fellow Zealot contenders for the Messiah role that led to his murder in AD 66. Christ did not bodily return until AD 70.

The Man of Lawlessness was supposed to serve as a sort of time marker for the believers, highlighting the beginning of the Great Tribulation's "days of vengeance". His destruction in Jerusalem's temple alerted the believers in the city that Christ's soon-coming return was on the near horizon in the future. Shortly afterward, the Roman armies of Cestius Gallus came to surround Jerusalem in October of AD 66, at which time the saints in Jerusalem obeyed Christ's warning and fled Jerusalem and Judea for the mountains. Those who fled escaped the siege of the unfortunate inhabitants inside Jerusalem from AD 66-70.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Paul, recognizing that the pagan Roman Empire was the hinderer, deliberately avoided identifying it so as not to arouse its attention unnecessarily.

On the contrary: Paul recognized that it would be dangerous for him to say anything opposing the high priesthood in Israel (particularly Ananias) who had been restraining the rise of the Zealot leader Menahem, the Man of Lawlessness. Ananias was the pro-Roman high priest which had Paul struck on the mouth at his trial. "God is about to smite thee, thou whited wall", Paul predicted. In AD 66, that prediction came to pass when the Zealot leader Menahem murdered the high priest Ananias who had been keeping him from a rise to Messianic leadership power in Jerusalem until then. Paul's reticence in writing down the name of either the Man of Lawlessness or his restrainer was to protect the believers from more persecution by the high priest and from attack by the dangerous Zealot elements present in Israel at the time.

That "mystery of iniquity" - the Zealot cause - was "already working" in Christ's and the Apostle Paul's days. The Zealots' simmering passion for nationalism rose to a fever pitch in AD 66 when the Zealots launched the "apostasia" - the rebellion against Rome.

 

[covenantee]

On the contrary: Paul recognized that it would be dangerous for him to say anything opposing the high priesthood in Israel (particularly Ananias) who had been restraining the rise of the Zealot leader Menahem, the Man of Lawlessness. Ananias was the pro-Roman high priest which had Paul struck on the mouth at his trial. "God is about to smite thee, thou whited wall", Paul predicted. In AD 66, that prediction came to pass when the Zealot leader Menahem murdered the high priest Ananias who had been keeping him from a rise to Messianic leadership power in Jerusalem until then. Paul's reticence in writing down the name of either the Man of Lawlessness or his restrainer was to protect the believers from more persecution by the high priest and from attack by the dangerous Zealot elements present in Israel at the time.

That "mystery of iniquity" - the Zealot cause - was "already working" in Christ's and the Apostle Paul's days. The Zealots' simmering passion for nationalism rose to a fever pitch in AD 66 when the Zealots launched the "apostasia" - the rebellion against Rome.

Provide, with name, date, and verbatim quotes, the name of one pre-19th-century recognized orthodox Christian historian or expositor who affirms "Menahem the Antichrist".

The apostate antichrist papacy martyred millions over the centuries of its reign.

How many did Menahem annihilate?

 

[covenantee]

On the contrary: Paul recognized that it would be dangerous for him to say anything opposing the high priesthood in Israel (particularly Ananias) who had been restraining the rise of the Zealot leader Menahem, the Man of Lawlessness. Ananias was the pro-Roman high priest which had Paul struck on the mouth at his trial. "God is about to smite thee, thou whited wall", Paul predicted. In AD 66, that prediction came to pass when the Zealot leader Menahem murdered the high priest Ananias who had been keeping him from a rise to Messianic leadership power in Jerusalem until then. Paul's reticence in writing down the name of either the Man of Lawlessness or his restrainer was to protect the believers from more persecution by the high priest and from attack by the dangerous Zealot elements present in Israel at the time.

That "mystery of iniquity" - the Zealot cause - was "already working" in Christ's and the Apostle Paul's days. The Zealots' simmering passion for nationalism rose to a fever pitch in AD 66 when the Zealots launched the "apostasia" - the rebellion against Rome.

The primary targets of Zealot terrorism were the occupying Romans, not Christians.

So there was no Menahem "the Antichrist".

A web search of "menahem antichrist" returns no associations.

 

[3 Resurrections]

How many did Menahem annihilate?

You are asking the wrong question. The question should be: How many does the scripture say that the single Antichrist would annihilate? And don't substitute the Sea Beast for this Antichrist role, because the Rev. 13 Sea Beast was another character altogether different from the Antichrist. Different history, different origin, different characteristics.

I certainly have no argument that the papacy over the span of history has engaged in persecution and martyrdom of the believers. The Reformers were sitting squarely in the middle of that oppression, and I don't blame them for wanting to connect the Antichrist label with the papacy that was persecuting them at the time. But they were mistaken on this point.

The papacy doesn't fit the definition or description of the Antichrist / "false christ" /Man of Lawlessness that John, Christ, and Paul spoke about. We are bound by those descriptions in scripture - not how the Reformers or historians have chosen to define the Antichrist. An antichrist or "false christ" (pseudo christ) was one who would come claiming to be Daniel's "Messiah the Prince", saying, "I am Christ" (Matt. 24:5 & 23-24). The words Messiah and Christ are interchangeable (John 1:41). In other words, this goes beyond simply opposing Christ: an antichrist denied that Jesus had already become the fulfillment of Daniel's Messiah in the flesh, and attempted to BE a substitute for Christ the promised "Messiah the Prince".

The typical mindset of those in first-century Israel was to look for a military type Messiah to fulfill Daniel 9:25's prophecy who would deliver them from the oppression of Rome - not from their sin. The Zealots driven by nationalistic patriotism all wanted to claim Daniel's prophesied role of the Messiah / Christ as a military type of commander. Their leaders were willing to steal from and kill anyone willing to stay subservient to Rome - even their fellow Jews and other competing Zealot leaders. By their attempts to exalt themselves over their own people as a "King of the Jews", each of those Zealot leaders were trying to steal the title that only and always belonged to Christ Jesus. That made them an enemy of the Lamb and a "false christ".

Menahem (the son or grandson of the insurrectionist "Judas the Galilean" in Acts 5:37) was the first Zealot leader who was able to get into the temple and present himself as "King of the Jews", dressed in Herod's royal garments that he had stolen from Masada. His murder of Ananias the high priest (who had been trying to restrain the influence of the Zealots) led Menahem to become what Josephus termed "an insupportable tyrant" in Jerusalem. In this, Menahem was "exalting himself" over every other Zealot leader who wanted to be called the King of the Jews and given homage. He was tracked down by the avenging son of Ananias and murdered in return for Menahem's murder of his father Ananias.

Menahem fulfilled every description and activity which Paul gave for the Man of Lawlessness. "Lawlessness" was merely a name for the Zealots in scripture, just as Christ was predicted in Isaiah 53:12 to be "numbered with the lawless" in His death, being crucified between two Zealot thieves who had participated in an insurrection against Rome (Mark 15:27-28).

 

[marks]

in His death, being crucified between two Zealot thieves who had participated in an insurrection against Rome (Mark 15:27-28).

Mark 15:27-28 KJV
27) And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left.
28) And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.

Zealots guilty of insurrection? OR thieves, guilty of stealing? I think this passage states the latter, not the former.

Much love!

 

[covenantee]

An antichrist or "false christ" (pseudo christ) was one who would come claiming to be Daniel's "Messiah the Prince", saying, "I am Christ" (Matt. 24:5 & 23-24). The words Messiah and Christ are interchangeable (John 1:41). In other words, this goes beyond simply opposing Christ: an antichrist denied that Jesus had already become the fulfillment of Daniel's Messiah in the flesh, and attempted to BE a substitute for Christ the promised "Messiah the Prince".

Bingo.

1. “All the names which in the Scripture are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that He is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope.” Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, De Conciliorum Auctoriatate (On the Authority of the Councils) Bk 2, chap. 17
2. “The pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God. He is the divine monarch and supreme emperor, and king of kings. Hence the pope is crowned with a triple crown, as King of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions.” Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, vol.6, art. “Papa II”
3. “We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.” Pope Leo XIII, in an encyclical letter dated June 20, 1894, The Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII, p. 304.