There aren't any of my words, only Jesus' words in the quotes from Luke 21 and Mark 13. So how did I change what he said in Matt 24?
No signs were given to wonder after an evil generation seeks after .
You said, using Matthew 24, that Jesus was saying that it is the worst tribulation in Israel, though He clearly said the world, and that when it said no flesh would be left alive, it solely meant those in Jerusalem/Israel, and no one else. Jesus did not say that. You changed what He said. If you say that you fell this is what He meant, that is one thing, but you said that you were going to change the wording. That is dangerous ground.
I did not say I was going to change the wording. I gave my interpretation of it which takes into account historical evidence and the full counsel of God. If anyone is changing things it is you. It does not say no one in the whole world would be left alive.
You--> 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. [post #125]
Add AMP:
What is the biggest difference between Matthew and Luke in regards to what happened? At the end of Luke's tribulation we have " 24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." How about Matthew?
I did not. And I wasn't accusing you. I was asking you not to do it. Present your interpretation, so I can tell you I believe you are mistaken and here is why. Leave the words alone. Leave them as they are. We are allowed to be wrong every day of the week, however, we should not be changing the words of God. I like posting the scripture a lot (when size constraints allow, and even then I may cut what I say) because context and wording matter. If you look (glance) at some of my responses to arminians and others, you will notice that they quote one verse, and I follow up by quoting the passage. Why? Context. Since I believe you know enough about Revelation 19, or that you would look it up if you didn't, I didn't post it for... size constraint.
I would say that verse is written for the entire population of the world...
In the idealist/millennial view there are two ages, since neither Jesus or Paul speak of more than two. This age and the age to come. That, among other things, makes the last days the time period between the resurrection and ascension and Jesus' return, the last days. So instead of "immediately after those days" having only one possible meaning, and that being the seven year tribulation, it applies to the tribulations of this age. Which no doubt will get worse the closer we get to the judgement. We are in the birth pains and have been since Jesus ascended. And that would mean that everything in Matt 24 takes place between the two advents, and some of it in the lifetime of the disciples. But there is no "that age", "this age", the "next age (a literal thousand years), and another age after that.
I've already told you...Jesus comes back twice. The rapture/resurrection and then the second time when He stands on the Mt. of Olives.
There are absolutely two ages. The temporal age of now that ends at the end of the millennial kingdom, and the next age, which starts at Revelation 21 with the passing away of the first heavens and the first earth, and, as God says, the first things. (Now you say that I change what Jesus says, and you would probably toss in God. Well, here is everything He said, and you can tell me that I changed what He said:
The only thing I believe, rock solid ground, that I am right about is Israel, and it's part in the end times. Israel will be saved. I am not saying that I am right that the temple will be rebuilt or anything like that. It is the understanding that God's plan for the redemption of Israel will reach it's fruition in the end times. (The elect of Israel.) It will be with God Himself, that is Jesus in this case, coming down Himself and rescuing them. At that time, He will restore the kingdom to Israel with Himself as King. At the end of the millennium we will have the beginning of the end of the first things. We will also see the completion of the 70 weeks prophecy with the finishing of the transgerssion, the end of sin, the bringing in of everlasting righteousness, the anointing of the Holy One/place, etc. The wondrous nature of God's redemption plan will be fully revealed and completed. All the elect will be gathered in, reconciled... redeemed.
You didn't say that it was your interpretation. You said that you will change the wording. A definitive statement. Can you show me where I have changed Jesus words, and not said what I believe it means? There is a reason why I paste so many scripture references, especially when someone is talking. That way I don't change the words. The words are there for all to see. I may give my own interpretation of those words, or what I believe it means, but the words stand. I very much agree with, when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how unlikely is true. (I would say, most probably true.) With God, and looking at God's word, that is important to understand. We cannot understand God and what He has told us through our own understanding. This is why I don't like titles/name tag theology/Christianity. It is ungiving, unforgiving, and stubborn. There is always more that we don't know that changes everything. That is why I feel that everyone just watching what is happening now is so important. It is the perfect laboratory as to whether futurism is correct or not. What is the perfect laboratory to this, you ask? The future. Time itself, and how it unfolds. It is ever before us, just waiting to be observed. I'm watching, not with baited breath, but with full curiosity. What is going to happen, and could it possibly line up with prophecy? The only way to find out isn't to shut out God, but it is to watch and see. Depending on what we see, we may need to change our understanding.
If one has not ascertained who Israel is and the nations purpose in redemption of the world (this creation and its inhabitants)that it served, then one cannot be right about Israel. Until that is done, perceiving God as nation building, and a preferred ethnic people, and two redemptions (no matter your claim that your belief concerning Israel does not create two peoples and two means of redemption before their becoming one people) then one is not standing on rock solid ground. Now, if you want to explore the purpose of Israel to the world and in redemption, we can. Just say the word.
That strikes me as both childish and deliberately obtuse for the sake of ridicule. What I said was, "Let me word it a different way." And the way I worded it expressed what I believed it was saying. You can also continue on making a non existent mountain out of a non existent mole hill if that suits you. But I have had enough of being ridiculed. Any more conversation on that subject is off topic and argumentative and will be ignored, possibly simply deleted as it violates the rules.
You have told me that yes. But that does not prove a single thing and is not actually refuting my statement.
Which is applied to this:
That is dealing with the millennial view of amillennialism. Not how many times he returns or the rapture.
It's part of the "end times"....is it not?
The millennium in idealist amillennialism is now. Time between the first and second advent. When Jesus returns it will be the end of this age and the age to come arrives. The immediately after the tribulation of those days (the millenium as I have described) is when Jesus returns.
I'm sure of who Israel is, and God's purpose in Israel. Who is talking about God nation building? They are God's chosen people, and Paul said that the call is irrevocable. Even in Deuteronomy God said that when all is said and done God and Israel would be reconciled.
But....a millenium is 1,000 years. So far we're coming up on 2,000 years....two millenium.
Good. What is that purpose?
Surely you realize that Israel has never been made up strictly of Abraham's descendants. Even when they came out of Egypt and in the wilderness and through all the history of given us, it also contained Gentiles. Ethnicity was never the point. A small portion of land was never the point or purpose. It was only the beginning of God taking all the land back from the dominion of Satan, and put it back into the hands of those he created it for by redeeming a people from all nations.
Do you not believe that all of the elect are the chosen people of God? Is national geographic Israel more the chosen people of God. If the Jew sees and understands and believes in Jesus, is that not for the same reasons that a Gentile believer does? That God elected them, regenerated them, and gave them to Christ? Are there two chosen peoples?
Interesting that is your takeaway from Rev 21. So Jew and Gentile believers are not one now?
Millennium is the word given to describe what Rev actually says is a thousand years. Numbers are repeatedly used in Rev and in the rest of the Bible as representative, not literal. A thousand years in Scripture is frequently used to represent a large but not specific number of things or days or years.
