One looks at prophecy...future events...then looks at the worldly events to see if they fit.
Followed by more insults. Do you think you could post without doing that, please?
The question then becomes was Jesus referring back to the destruction of the temple that would happen in a.d.70? Or to some future seven or 31/2 year (however one looks at it) that is said to be dipicted in the book of Revelation? There are three sections to the Olivet Discourse and it is important to keep them in mind. Read Josephus' account of that historic incident and then come back and tell me just how bad it was. Nothing that bad had ever happened in Israel before and has not since, and according to Jesus, will not ever.
It does not actually say no life would be left on the planet.
I have never heard that one before. It must be unique.
An easy way to answer given what He said would be to ask if Israel has ever faced a time in its history that would be considered categorically worse then the death of about 1 million people. The question to ask would be, do you consider the holocaust and all of that to be a worse time then any time in the history of the Jewish people. (Start simple). The next question to ask is, did something happen in the first century that shortened what was happening so that it didn't wipe all life off of planet earth. In other words, if whatever event brought the end of the events in the first century didn't happen until a few days later, would all life have ceased to exist on Earth, as Jesus said would have happened if the events of the Great Tribulation had not been shortened, cut short.
So, 1 million dead, next to 6 million. Which is worse? And how they were killed. I don't even want to do a deep dive into what was done to the Jews, as I have heard a few things due to my time majoring in history and.. well... calling a nazi a monster is the same as saying that unicorns are carniverous beings that turn rainbows black.
So, could I get your rational explanation of what "no one would survive" means? I believe I said there would be no human life left, as in, "no one would survive".
No flesh would be saved. Is that not the same as saying everyone dies?
Not a single person will survive. That sounds like no human life left on the planet.
I don't believe Jesus was referring to 70 AD for this. Consider Jesus wording "21 For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will. 22 Unless those days had been cut short, no [j]life would have been saved; but for the sake of the [k]elect those days will be cut short."
I hope you don't mean here, that some other world figure (candidate for some office) needs to be tried if (since) Trump doesn't manage it.
Israel didn't experience that. Jewish people did.
In Matt 24 Jesus was talking about Jerusalem and the temple, not scattered Jews. Jewish people in general.
The passage does not say it would have wiped out all life on earth if it had not been shortened. And my post was dealing with what I said it was dealing with. My what if---the passage was referring to the fall of Jerusalem and the temple in a.d.70. If it was, then all flesh, or none would remain alive (depending on translation) would be referring to "in Jerusalem".
I think that sentence needs to be restructured for clarity of what it is you are asking. But I will do my best to address the parts of it that I do make sense of. You are presumming a separate Great Tribulation existing in Revelation and then addressing my post accordingly. Rather than dealing directly with my assertion that Jesus might have been referring to the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple.
Did that happen in Israel?
Here it is again.
I will word it slightly differently. If the days were not cut short no Jew would be left alive in Jerusalem, not even the elect, so for their sake---those God appointed to give to Christ---they were cut short. That should give you an idea how brutal and through was the carnage. There was even cannibalism, eating babies, according to Josephs.
Not necessarily. It depends on context and who the flesh are in the context. Now if it actually said all humans of the planet that would mean everyone. But it does not say that. It is read into it and then applied to Revelation, a place where it is not.
Not in the context of the destruction of the temple, which if you remember was the first question the disciples asked.
What has that to do with anything? I am presenting my view which is that, given the whole counsel of God on the subject, and the arrangement of Matt 24, he likely was speaking of a.d.70 in that verse.
I am considering it. I guess will need to come back in a separate post and when I have more time, and break down the three categories of Matt 24. It will take some time and length.
He frames it in terms of Israel. "The beginning of the world" is not a framework, it is a time period. I would venture to say with confidence that the flood that left only six people and a few animals alive was much worse than anything we see in Revelation as far a Great Tribulations go.
See above.
He didn't. He was talking to Jews about the Jewish temple in Jerusalem. That is why "the world" is NOT the frame.
See above. "Since the beginning of" designates the use of world within a frame of time. If it meant the whole world it would not have "beginning" in front of it. It would just say the world or the whole world.
Read some of the accounts in the OT...
They've tried ll kinds of people..and none of the really fit the prophecy. Some day...soon... I believe someone will fit the description.
Or at least, appear to fit. But it is not a good thing.
Have you compared them with accounts of a.d.70?
I will ignore that for reasons you will see below.
How can we be sure exactly? I would say that the answer to the question about when these things will happen ends with this verse "14 This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole [g]world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come." And then the end will come. What end? What Jesus was talking about? That would require more consideration before answering. So, if that ends that, what comes next. Well the next question. What will be the sign of your coming, by which they were asking when would Jesus be unveiled as King Messiah and rule as Old Testament eschatology teaches. (The disciples were not at all ignorant of eschatology, and in fact, the questions they are asking are because of their knowledge of eschatology.) The signs for this begin with the Great Tribulation. The Great Tribulation ends with Jesus immediate return to gather His elect.
The passage is dealing with signs to Jesus coming into as King into His Kingdom, the disciples second question. It is no longer dealing with the destruction of Jerusalem. That end had already come as mentioned in verse 14. The disciples, up to their martyrdom, and gone far and wide preaching the gospel. I believe they say one apostle went up into Britian. All except John were martyred with the last being right around the time Jerusalem was destroyed. I believe it was 68 or 69 AD.
I don't think that Jesus Great Tribulation refers to the fall of Jerusalem except that it may be a multi-fulfillment prophecy. This would be dealing with a final Great Tribulation before Jesus immediate return to gather His elect (why does everyone ignore these verses as though Jesus never said it) and what comes next, before we get to the final judgment, the consummation of everything.
Yes. Josephus wrote all about it.
Read this again. "21 For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will. 22 Unless those days had been cut short, no [j]life would have been saved; but for the sake of the [k]elect those days will be cut short."
My simple request is that you not add to any "Thus saith the Lord" what is not specifically mentioned. He doesn't mention Jews here, just no life remaining, and He doesn't mention Jerusalem here. This may very well be using Great to speak to the size and extent of the tribulation, such as enveloping the whole world, and not just Israel. Again, I would consider linking this whole portion to Zechariah and Revelation, in particular Revelation 19.
Jesus put no limit. He just said, no flesh would be saved, no life would be saved. No limits in place. He may have just said that the extent of the Tribulation is great, and engulfs the whole world. Or, though I can't find a strong argument in the lexicons I read, it speaks to how terrible the tribulation is. Greek is apparently, special, in how it handles "megalos".
Yes, and that answer ended at verse 14.
I don't see anything there that makes it AD 70. Unless, again, we are all damned and going to hell since the elect were gathered in 70 AD.
I didn't say (at least I hope not) that it is a framework. It is a period of time, which He set as from the beginning of the world to the end of the world, the extent of this Tribulation would have no like. Now can you explain how you see the flood as a tribulation and not as God's judgment against man? The flood left no one alive. Noah was not granted a special dispensation that enabled him to survive, nor was his family. If they did not have the ark they would have died. The ark took them out of the flood, as salvation takes out of this world of sin. The flood was not a tribulation. It was judgment. The Great Tribulation is... a Great Tribulation.
No, He was talking about the signs of His coming. The Tribulation is one such sign, and then He comes immediately after.
You misunderstand what Jesus is saying. He is saying that a Tribulation of this magnitude, size, "megalos" has not occurred since the beginning of the world, in which Jesus is saying, in all the history of the world, such an event of this magnitude has never happened. Not before now (the time Jesus is speaking), and it won't be matched after. He is speaking of Israel and all the tribulations Israel has faced, He uses all of the history of the whole world. This is to be the mother of all Great Tribulations. And why shouldn't it be. It is to be the end of this world. Jesus second coming happens IMMEDIATELY at its end. Would God allow this world to go out on a whimper?
Yes. Here's a brief portion of the description of when the first temple was destroyed...
Reasons such as that is why I started this post....about the bones of the saints.
I did not ask about the destruction of the first temple which is what you give here but if you had compared what happened in a.d.70 to other tribulation in the OT.
The six million happened in Europe, not Israel. Keep track of the question.
What I was saying is this...if Jesus said "For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be." Matt 24:21."........an event such as what happened in AD70 already happened.
That makes no sense. Clarify.
I meant frame, which is what you did say. That the discourse was framed by "world."
Why do you produce divergents in conversations in this way? It would help if you would stay focused on the subject.
Not interpreting them as you do does not mean they are being ignored.
What event though? If you are going to say the Great Tribulation of Revelation then you must prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the events in Revelation are contained within a seven or three and a half year time period.
Yes.
I say no. Still Israel. The flood was far greater of a tribulation for one thing.
I never have so why do you say such a thing?He is talking to Jews though and about Jerusalem, among other things. So let what follows count as addressing the assertions about the matter in your entire post.
