the great Jewish "distress"

Would you care to show me the three separate individual questions in Mark's account? - and in Luke's account?

If you took the time to study the 'grammar of the language', you would see clearly that the last two phrases in Matthew 24:3 are actually two parts of a single question.

Not to mention - how many question marks do you see?

Those two phrases go together - they are not separate questions.

funny [ Rondonmon your a little bit of a rascal.]If u can't make it clear 2 others,,,well it benefits u.Did u know that some of it's bologna macaroni over Genralized Bombastis and even Superflorius

You assume alot, too...

I already told you - I am not looking to debate - discussion is more my thing.

One thing you don't realize is that I don't have available to me right now a fast computer with a keyboard - or, I might be more inclined to writing longer posts more often. However, as long as I have to use this hand-held device - and use this post editor that I absolutely despise having to use - I will surely not be inclined to write any more than "I just have to"...

It is a "royal pain"...

It takes me a while to write anything. A lot of the time it just does not seem worth it.

debate is a tool of a good fishermen.Lettuce reason 2gether the leafs r 4 the healing of the nations

So - before you go spouting "I win, you lose!" - understand that there is a lot more than you realize going on here, and none of it has anything to do with your post...

Firstly I consider myself to fall into the Partial Preterist camp. Jesus definitely spoke a great deal about
the destruction of Jerusalem and the judgement that would come within the lifetime of his hearers. But taking the many Bible passages in both testaments, it seems obvious to me that there will be a second coming and judgement sometime in the future. The whole Bible looks towards a time when there will be a new heaven and earth.

There is one major error concerning why Jesus was condemned and crucified. It is believed that it was because he said he was the Messiah it wasn't. It was because he said he was the Son of Man. According to the Gospels he used this title or inferred it over seventy times. The Son of Man commonly meant a son of Adam or plainly a man. But there was and is another meaning and that meaning is found in Daniel Chapter seven which was written in Aramaic.

I saw in the night visions and behold one like the Son of Man
came with the clouds of heaven and came to the Ancient of days
and they brought him near before him. And there was given him
dominion and glory and a kingdom that all people, nations and
languages should serve him his dominion is an everlasting dominion
which shall not pass away and his kingdom that which shall not be
destroyed.

Dan 7 13-14 KJV

And the High Priest answered and said unto him
I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us
whether thou be the Christ the Son of God. Jesus
saithe unto him Thou hast said nevertheless I say
unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man
sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the
clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes
saying He hath spoken blasphemy what further need
have we of witnesses? Behold now ye have heard his
blasphemy.

Matt 26 63 -65 KJV


Jesus was not calling himself an ordinary Man. It was obvious to everyone that he was
a Human being. It was because of that some didn't believe in him. The person in the
Daniel passage only looked like a man. According to Exodus no one can see God and live
let alone sit with him. The Jews especially the Sanhedrin knew that the Son of Man in
the Daniel passage was Divine. That's why they accused him of blasphemy.

So what has this got to do with modern Israel? Well the Judaism practiced by those there who are religious cant understand why Christians try to get them to accept Jesus as the Messiah because
to many of them the Messiah is a political leader. In the OT Kings were called Messiahs which
means one who is anointed with oil which was part of the ceremony ie coronation. Their relationship with God was special but they were not considered Divine. The Messiah was and is one of the important titles and roles of Jesus but he is the divine Son of Man. At his first coming he never
used the title Messiah or Son of God publicly because he knew that it would be misunderstood
and it still is by both Jews and Christians.

I just did. And I am not speaking about Luke, I could go into that and find it, but one Gospel is TRUTH enough for me, we don't have to delve into other Gospels. The Three Questions are OBVIOUS.

Matt. 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. 2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

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?

So, we indeed get THREE QUESTIONS, the first questions is about the Temple being Destroyed, WHEN SHALL THES THINGS BE? Well, what were THESE THINGS? Well, Jesus said See ye, not all these THINGS? So, "these things" were a question about the Temple, thus Jesus answers in verses 4-6, thus these two verses are the 70 AD event answer like unto this:

4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you(current events). 5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. 6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.

Interpretation in modern English: Don't be deceived (from afar) when you hear that the Messiah has come, for many will come in my name saying they are me, the Christ, you will see wars and rumors of wars (thus leading up to 70 AD these rumors abounded and ultimately Jerusalem was sacked by Rome). Then, finally, Jesus says but the END IS NOT YET or as in other Gospels, he says BY & BY.

The Pharisees were not unlearned, they understood Rome was the Fourth Beast, thus they expected a "Political Savior" which is what they saw their Messiah as being, thus they expected the Messiah to come and save them. Thus seeing things unfold the Pharisees and Jewish leaders PUT FORTH various men trying to FORCE a Messianic Figure onto the scene because they knew Rome was the Fourth Beast, this FULFILLED Jesus' prophecy in John 5:43 where he was talking unto the Pharisees.

John 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

This is NOT an End Time Prophecy, this is where so many go wrong and try and say the Jews accept an End Time Ant-Christ as their Messiah, that is asinine. This is about the Pharisees of Jesus' time they tried to put forth Messianic Political Saviors in their time to save them from the Fourth Beast/Rome.

Thus above, Jesus tells the Disciples, do not buy into this, Jerusalem will be sacked, the temple will be destroyed, but the END IS NOT YET (VERY, VERY KEY here is THE END reference). Jesus is saying the 70th week is not yet. THE END = the 70th Week. You don't actually think Jesus spoke about the temple's destruction and the Disciples didn't even bother to ask about that point, do you?

Then we get AND the sign of thy coming AND the end of the world. The TWO ANDS shows its three questions also. I bet you don't understand that Jesus both Raptures the Church (Matt. 24:35-51) AND returns with the Church in Rev. 19 (which is Matt. 24:31)

Then in Matt. 24:7-14 we get the Church Age SIGNS that BIRTH (thus Birth Pangs) the END TIME 70th week. Thus in verse 14, Jesus tells the Disciples WHEN the End would come, so that he knew they could not mistake the 70 AD event and rush to Jerusalem expecting Jesus to show up, then be killed. Jesus says the Gospel MUST BE PREACHED unto the ends of the World for a Witness to ALL NATIONS, and then the END SHALL COME (70th week).

So, the Disciples understood that they had to take the Gospel unto all the world, and India & China were KNOWN Nations at that time, so the Disciples could never mistake the 70 AD event with Jesus coming unless they had spread the Gospel unto India and China. Furthermore, Jesus told each disciple they would be Martyred for his name's sake, save John, thus the others asked about John, and Jesus told them not to worry themselves about John.

No need to go into the other two signs very deep, those are obvious. Matt. 24:31 is the END of the Age and Matt. 24:36-51 is the SIGN of Jesus' coming to Rapture the Church Pre Trib.
I don't need question marks. The Disciples did not understand the Rapture, but they wanted to know the SIGNS of his coming AND the End of the Age. That's TWO QUESTIONS.

If I am speaking to you and say what is your favorite Football team AND player? Is that not TWO QUESTIONS? Case closed

Call it what you will, we can call it black-eyed peas, it's still debate in essnce when you put forth unsound scriptures and have to set straight. I think Paul called it CORRECTION.

I understand, been down that road.

I don't see the Gospel as me winning, I see it as me putting forth God's truths for His name's sake. Putting out the fires of untruth by others not called unto Prophecy.

'black-eyed peas, one their songs was from ["%$#" To the stds tasty tasty]. Not so tasty

SMH

That's about what I would expect. You do not need to be teaching or trying to teach prophecy, it's not your calling, that's for sure.

I should be telling you this.