The Jewishness of the Olivet Discourse

[Dave Watchman]

16 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

This is translated respectely,

Matthew 24:4-5
4 ... Take heed that no man deceive you.
5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; ....
KJV

Mark 13:5-6
5 ... Take heed lest any man deceive you:
6 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; ....
KJV

Luke 21:8
8 ... Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ ...
KJV

After this, in all three accounts, Yeshua` said, "ye shall hear of wars and (reports of wars/reports of wars/commotion)."

So, let's just put the little piece of fiction, namely that Luke's account is somehow different, away. It doesn't work.

Hi Retro, Shabbat Shalom

I've found evidence to the contrary of some of the things you are saying here but I agree in the "Jewishness" of the Olivet Discourse. Even to the extreme that the version found in Matthew was the only NT book originally written in Hebrew. I've also found quotes from Eusebius and Augustine who both made statements regarding Matthew as having been originally written in Hebrew. 

It was because of another issue I felt that I HAD to know for sure if Luke was at the same venue as Matthew. Some say the Olivet is past or future or even a dual prophecy. The verse that you quote from Luke (21:8) comes prior to a break that is not found in Matthew 24. Luke started out just like Matthew did until we get to verse 12: "but before all this", where Jesus stops talking about our end times and begins speaking to His disciples own era and the destruction of Jerusalem. He then seems to continue on with that same topic until verse 25: "And there will be signs in the sun and moon", when He shifts back to our end times. This is in the classic Day of the Lord style prophetic architecture that we can also find similar to Isaiah 13. There you have the prophet beginning with an ancient Day of the Lord event but then he stops and seems to peer down through the millennia describing the final and global Day of the Lord before returning back to conclude with the ancient event. In these cases the prophecy is seemingly split into thirds.

I've also enjoyed your explanation of "let him who is on the housetop not come down". I'm glad my house doesn't have guys running across the top of it, I don't think that I'd get used to that. But I also know that Jesus could not have been talking about 1st century Jerusalem. Because I can SEE the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel standing in the holy place. From the time that the "daily" is taken away and this abomination is "set up" there will be 1290 days until the end of these wonders. It's the end of the world Jesus is talking about, not the destruction of 1st century Jerusalem. The duTillet Matthew 24 reads: "those who are in Judah" , as in the Lion of the Tribe of, that should flee.

So those who are IN Jesus:

-->may your flight not be in winter or on the Sabbath.

 

"Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself,

unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless

you abide in me.

I am the vine; you are the branches.

Whoever abides in me...

During my search I found an old book from 1927 written by Hugh Schonfield: "An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew's Gospel": Translated, with an Introduction Notes and Appendices. I think Amazon has a Kindle version for a couple of dollars and even if you don't have a Kindle, software can be downloaded to view it on PC:

https://www.amazon.com/Old-Hebrew-Text-Matthews-Gospel-ebook/dp/B01FEL0IJ2/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1469902096&sr=1-4

Torahresource used to have a link to a scanned original PDF version of the book that might still be on the internet archives for awhile: 

https://web.archive.org/web/20130513125551/http://www.torahresource.com/DuTillet/Schonfield.pdf

If the free link works you might be able to go to page 16 of your PDF viewer and start reading at "The Genealogy". It should become quite convincing that this is an extremely accurate version as some say the duTillet is the Q source for Matthew's Gospel. The duTillet is the only version with 3 complete groups of 14 names in Jesus' genealogy. Then on to page 85 of 105 for the beginning of chapter 24. But if your PDF viewer is different than mine, it probably won't work too well.

I was thinking about you a year ago when I was looking into all this, I remembered you as someone which understood the languages and still consider your opinion as I weigh all the material out. In the end I don't think that it's imperative or crucial for us to figure out the best translation of every single version or word. My English KJV or ESV has everything in it that we really need the most of.

Peaceful Sabbath

Snip from Schonfield's translation: 

There can be no doubt from verse 17 that the compiler intended to divide his list into three groups of fourteen names each. It is not a little surprising, then, to discover on counting up the names that, while the first two groups have their complete complement of fourteen, the third group contains only thirteen names. A table will make this clear :

Group 1   Group 2    Group 3

1. Abraham. 1. Solomon. 1. Shealtiel.

2. Isaac. 2. Rehoboam, 2. Zerubbabel

3. Jacob, 3. Abijam. 3. Abihud.

4. Judah. 4. Asa. -----

5. Pharez. 5. Jehoshaphat. 4. Eliakim.

6. Hezron. 6. Joram, 5. Azzur.

7. Ram. 7. Uzziah. 6. Zadok.

8. Amminadab. 8. Jotham. 7. Ammon.

9. Nahshon. 9. Ahaz, 8. Elihud.

10. Salmon, 10. Hezekiah, 9. Eleazer.

11. Boaz. 11. Menasseh. 10. Mattan.

12. Obed. 12. Ammon. 11. Jacob.

13. Jesse. 13. Josiah. 12. Joseph,

14. David. 14. Jeconiah. 13.

Commentators have attempted to evade the difficulty by repeating the name of David at the head of Group 2, or that of Jeconiah at the head of Group 3. It is obvious, however, that a name is missing, and it would greatly influence opinion on the antiquity of the Hebrew text if it could be shown that the restored name of Abner is the correct one. One way of testing this point is to show good reason why it should have dropped out of the particular place where it is found in the Hebrew. Fortunately such a reason is not difficult to find, and the writer hazards, therefore, what appears to him a possible solution. On turning to other MS. authorities, the Old Syriac Gospels, Curetonian and Sinaitic, both read the name immediately preceding the name Abner in the Hebrew as Abiur, the difference between which and the form Abiud is very slight, the only alteration to be made being in the position of the dot on the last letter. In Hebrew the difference would be equally slight :

אבית , Abiud.

אביור , Abiur.

Now the name Abner is sometimes written as אבינר , Abiner (cf. 1 Sam. 14:50, 51). Supposing the scribe to have had before him אביוד הוליד את אבינר , “Abiud begat Abiner,” he might easily omit the second name as a dittograph, the נ Nun, and ו Vaw, being readily confused in Hebrew though not in Syriac. Another variant in verse 14 may be similarly explained on the basis of a Hebrew original. Here we find the name Achim read as אמרן, Ammon, where the Old Syriac has אבין, Achin. When it is remembered that the letter י Yod, was often written with a long tail like a ן Vaw, the difference between the Hebrew and Syriac is hardly distinguishable.

Finally, we would draw attention to a new rendering of the cry from the Cross, Matt. 27:46, which is given in the Hebrew as אלי אלי למה שבחתני : “My God, my God, why hast thou forgotten me?” instead of the usual rendering, “why hast thou forsaken me?” It is common knowledge that the quotation as it stands in the Greek is a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic, though Mark gives it entirely in Aramaic. We have evidence in Codex Bezae and the Old Latin MSS. which read Zapthani, of early attempts to restore the text to the form in which it is found in the Hebrew of Ps. 22:1. But the problem admits of another solution. The new Hebrew rendering is obviously a combination of Ps. 22:1 with Ps. 42:9. In the latter passage we read, “I will say unto God my Rock, למהשבחתיי. why hast thou forgotten me?” Any one may see how closely the subject-matter of the two Psalms is related. The problem thus resolves itself into a choice between the Hebrew, שכהתני. and the Aramaic, שבקתני. May not both readings be due to the uncertain hearing of the eye-witnesses? It must not be forgotten that some thought that He called for Elijah (Matt. 27:47).

 

“Eusebius in his history (6.25.4) quotes Origen as saying that he had learned that “The first Gospel was written by Matthew, who was once a tax collector, but who afterwards was an Apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for converts from Judaism, and published n the Hebrew language.”

Augustine in his work on the agreement of the evangelists (1.2.4.) writes: “Of these four it is certain that only Matthew is regarded as having written in the Hebrew language, while the others wrote in Greek” and he says that Mark “followed closely in his footsteps, as his imitator and epitomizer.”

 

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, Dave Watchman.

Mattityahu 1:1-17
1:1 This is the genealogy of Yeshua the Messiah, son of David, son of Avraham:

2 (1) Avraham was the father of (2) Yitz’chak,
Yitz’chak was the father of (3) Ya‘akov,
Ya‘akov was the father of (4) Y’hudah and his brothers,
3 Y’hudah was the father of (5) Peretz and Zerach (their mother was Tamar),
Peretz was the father of (6) Hetzron,
Hetzron was the father of (7) Ram,
4 Ram was the father of (8) ‘Amminadav,
‘Amminadav was the father of (9) Nachshon,
Nachshon was the father of (10) Salmon,
5 Salmon was the father of (11) Bo‘az (his mother was Rachav),
Bo‘az was the father of (12) ‘Oved (his mother was Rut),
‘Oved was the father of (13) Yishai,
6 Yishai was the father of (14) David the king.

David was the father of (1) Shlomo (his mother was the wife of Uriyah),
7 Shlomo was the father of (2) Rechav‘am,
Rechav‘am was the father of (3) Aviyah,
Aviyah was the father of (4) Asa,
8 Asa was the father of (5) Y’hoshafat,
Y’hoshafat was the father of (6) Yoram,
Yoram was the father of (7) ‘Uziyahu,
9 ‘Uziyahu was the father of (8) Yotam,
Yotam was the father of (9) Achaz,
Achaz was the father of (10) Hizkiyahu,
10 Hizkiyahu was the father of (11) M’nasheh,
M’nasheh was the father of (12) Amon,
Amon was the father of (13) Yoshiyahu,
11 Yoshiyahu was the father of Y’khanyahu and his brothers
at the time of (14) the Exile to Bavel. 

12 After the Babylonian Exile, (1) Y’khanyahu was the father of (2) Sh’altiel,
Sh’altiel was the father of (3) Z’rubavel,
13 Z’rubavel was the father of (4) Avihud,
Avihud was the father of (5) Elyakim,
Elyakim was the father of (6) ‘Azur,
14 ‘Azur was the father of (7) Tzadok,
Tzadok was the father of (8) Yakhin,
Yakhin was the father of (9) El’ichud,
15 El’ichud was the father of (10) El‘azar,
El‘azar was the father of (11) Mattan,
Mattan was the father of (12) Ya‘akov,
16 Ya‘akov was the father of (13) Yosef the husband of Miryam, 
from whom was born the (14) Yeshua who was called the Messiah.

17 Thus there were fourteen generations from Avraham to David,
fourteen generations from David to the Babylonian Exile,
and fourteen generations from the Babylonian Exile to the Messiah. 
CJB

I've done quite a bit of study on this, regarding the term "generation": I believe that you would find, if you study it out, too, that a "generation" is NOT just a transition from father to son. Rather, it's a back and forth of position with God, which only MAY be related to the transition between father and son. Notice that even as it is listed as three sets of "fourteen generations," the second set of 14 doesn't end with a person's name but with the time period called "the Exile to Bavel," and Y'khanyahu is listed TWICE, once before this Exile and once after. This explains the whole SECTION of names that were skipped within this genealogy.

(See 2 Kings 8:24-15:1.)

1 Chronicles 3:10-19
10 Shlomo’s son was Rechav‘am, his son Aviyah, his son Asa, his son Y’hoshafat, 11 his son Yoram, his son Achazyah, his son Yo’ash, 12 his son Amatzyah, his son ‘Azaryah, his son Yotam, 13 his son Achaz, his son Hizkiyahu, his son M’nasheh, 14 his son Amon and his son Yoshiyahu. 15 The sons of Yoshiyahu: Yochanan the firstborn, Y’hoyakim the second, Tzedekyah the third, and Shalum the fourth. 16 The sons of Y’hoyakim: Y’khonyah his son, and Tzedekyah his son. 17 The sons of Y’khonyah, also called Asir: Sh’alti’el his son; 18 also Malkiram, P’dayah, Shen’atzar, Y’kamyah, Hoshama and N’davyah. 19 The sons of P’dayah: Z’rubavel and Shim‘i.
CJB

Technically, the list should not have begun with Avraham since it was "FROM Avraham" but the first transition was WITHIN his lifetime. Thus, a line could have been added: "From Avram to Avraham AFTER his circumcision."

There is nothing wrong with the lists of "fourteen generations." What's wrong is our understanding of the word "generations."

 

[WilliamL]

Stick to the subject, please.

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, Dave Watchman.

This is kind of a P.S. (PostScript) to your above post. I think it's important also to mention that "in Y'hudah" or "in Judah" does NOT mean "in Christ." If anything, it would be that "in Christ" or "in the Messiah Yeshua`" one would be "in Y'hudah," since Yeshua` was a member of the tribe of Y'hudah.

[Retrobyter]

3 minutes ago, WilliamL said:

Stick to the subject, please.

Shalom, WilliamL.

LOL! Whose thread is this anyway? Okay, okay, let's get back to the subject....

[Retrobyter]

Shalom to all.

We've just talked about the points already established and I mentioned a fifth point: "Fifth, there are certain contextual keys that make no sense outside of the culture and times of the first-century Jewish city, Yerushalayim (Jerusalem), specifically what is referred to today as the 'Old City,'" and gave a few examples.

For my sixth point, I wish I could reproduce for you my entire study on the Olivet Discourse, but it's 48 pages long printed in landscape. It's a harmony of Matthew 24 and 25, Mark 13, and Luke 21 in the Greek that was produced in Microsoft Excel.
Column 1 is the verse number of Matthew 24 & 25;
column 2 is the word number of that verse;
column 3 is the Greek word; 
column 4 is the English translation of that word; 
column 5 is the order # of that word (as a running tally);

column 6 is the verse number of Mark 13;
column 7 is the word number of that verse;
column 8 is the Greek word;
column 9 is the English translation of that word;
column 10 is the order # of that word (as a running tally);

column 11 is the verse number of Luke 21;
column 12 is he word number of that verse;
column 13 is the Greek word;
column 14 is the English translation of that word;
column 15 is the order # of that word (as a running tally).

I produced this harmony with background colors:

pink for Matthew,
yellow for Mark, and
blue for Luke.
If any words are found in both Matthew and Mark, they are marked with a background color of red (red [pink] + yellow = orange [red]);
if any words are found in both Mark and Luke, they are marked with a background color of green (yellow + blue = green);
if any words are found in both Matthew and Luke, they are marked with a background color of purple (red [pink] + blue = purple); and if any words are found in all three, they are marked with a background color of brown (red + yellow + blue = brown).

(I also added a key to these colors in the upper right corner.)

With this harmony, I can easily find the words that are listed in all three passages (those with a brown background), and align them together, adjusting the order # of those words.

The bottom line of this exercise was that I discovered that the verbs that ended with "-te" (-tau-epsilon) or "-the" (-theta-epsilon) in Greek, and the plural, second-person pronouns (humeis [nom.], humoon [gen., abl.], humin [loc., instr., dat.], and humas [acc.]), are locations that involve the persons to whom Yeshua` was DIRECTLY speaking. The rest of the passages could be speaking to anybody in the future.

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, everyone.

I think what I CAN do is provide the locations where these verbs and pronouns can be found. This will provide the verses that were specifically addressed to Yeshua`s listeners, which can show the verses that were predicted directly for His disciples of the first century, and the remaining locations would be passages that could be projected into the distant future.

There's one location in Matthew 24:2, but the actual discourse spoken on Har haZeitiym didn't begin until verse 24:4 and in Mark 13:5 and in Luke 21:8. I will begin each line with the verses (--/--/--), representing (Matthew 24/Mark 13/Luke 21), and the Greek word with its translation:

(4/5/8) blepete, (You)-look-out
(4/5/--) humas, you (acc.)
(--/--/8) planeetheete, ye-be-led-astray
(--/--/8) poreutheete, go-ye
(6,--/--) melleesete, ye-shall-attend
(--/7/9) akouseete, ye-shall-hear
(6/--/--) horate, (you)-discern-clearly
(6/7/--) throeisthe, ye-be-frightened
(--/--/9) ptoeetheete, (you)-be-terrified
(--/9/--) blepete, (you)-look-out
(--/9/--) humeis, ye (nom.)
(--/--/12) humas, you (acc.)
(9/--/--) humas, you (acc.)
(--/9/--) humas, you (acc.)
(--/9/--) dareesesthe, ye-will-be-beaten
(9/--/--) humas, you (acc.)
(--/--/13) humin, to-you (dat.)
(--/11/--) humas, you (acc.)
(--/11/--) promerimnate, do-be-careful-beforehand
(--/11/--) laleeseete, ye-should-say
(--/11/--) meletate, ye-meditate (your reply)
(--/11/--) humin, to-you (dat.)
(--/11/--) laleite, (ye)-speak
(--/11/--) humeis, ye (nom.)
(--/--/14) thesthe, (ye)-settle
(--/--/14) humoon, of-you (gen.)
(--/--/15) humin, you (dat.)
(--/--/15) humin, you (dat.)
(--/--/16) paradotheesesthe, ye-will-be-delivered-up
(9/13/17) esesthe, ye-will-be
(--/--/18) humoon, of-you (gen.)
(--/--/19) humoon, of-you (gen.)
(--/--/19) humoon, of-you (gen.)
(--/--/20) ideete, ye-see
(--/--/20) gnoote, (ye)-know
(15/14/--) ideete, ye-shall-see
(20/18/--) proseuchesthe, (ye)-pray
(20/18/--) humoon, of-you (gen.)
(23/21/--) humin, to-you (dat.)
(23/21/--) pisteuseete/pisteuete, (you)-believe
(--/23/--) humeis, ye (nom.)
(--/23/--) blepete, (ye)-watch-out
(25/23/--) humin, to-you (dat.)
(26/--/--) humin, to-you (dat.)
(26/--/--) pisteuseete, (ye)-believe
(--/--/28) anakupsate, (ye)-look-up
(--/--/28) eparate, (ye)-lift-up/(ye)-raise-up
(--/--/28) humoon, of-you (gen.)
(--/--/28) humoon, of-you (gen.)
(32/28/--) mathete, (ye)-learn
(--/--/29) idete, (ye)-look/(ye)-consider
(32/28/30) ginooskete, (ye)-know
(33/29/31) humeis, ye (nom.)
(33/29/31) ideete, ye-see
(33/29/31) ginooskete, know-ye
(34/30/32) humin, to-you (dat.)

I'll stop there for now and will continue later. For perspective, that takes me through the first 26 pages of my study, and page 31 is where Matthew 25 begins.

In ALL of these verses, we are looking at areas in which Yeshua` was speaking DIRECTLY to His students that day.

 

[Retrobyter]

Shalom to all.

I should have mentioned above that "ye" is the 2nd person, plural, subjective pronoun in older English. Again, here's a chart of just the 2nd person:

Number: subjective, objective, possessive adjective, possessive pronoun
Singular: thou, thee, thy, thine
Plural: ye, you, your, yours

Today, we only use the three forms, "you," "your" and "yours," using "you" for "ye" and using the plural forms for the singular, as well. In doing so, we have lost valuable information regarding subject/object information and number. Can you tell, for instance, to whom I am speaking when I say aloud in a crowded room, "Do you have a pencil?" Am I speaking to all or to the one standing right in front of me? We cannot tell without some clarification in today's English.

However, in the King's English of 1611 A.D., one might ask, "Hast thou a pencil?" (If "pencils" were in existence at the time.) And, it would be clear that I am speaking to ONE person, not all in the room. In the King's English, to ask otherwise would be to say, "Have ye a pencil?" And, all in the room would know that I was making a general inquiry to all within the room. (This fact seems to be lost on many people who read Luke 17:21.)

In Greek, they likewise have the singular forms (su, sou, soi, and se) as well as the plural forms (humeis, humoon, humin, and humas). 

Continuing on...

(--/--/34) prosechete, Take-heed
(--/--/34) humoon, of-you/your
(--/33/--) blepete, (ye)-look-out
(--/33/36) agrupneite, (ye)-stay-awake
(--/33/--) proseuchesthe, (ye)-pray
(--/33/--) oidate, ye-see/ye-know
(42/35/--) greegoreite, watch-ye/guard-ye
(42/35/--) oidate, ye-see/ye-know
(--/--/36) katischuseete, ye-may-be-counted-worthy
(--/36/--) humas, you (acc.)
(--/37/--) humin, to-you (dat.)
(--/37/--) greegoreite, (ye)-watch/(ye)-guard
(43/--/--) ginooskete, (ye)-know
(44/--/--) humeis, ye
(44/--/--) ginesthe, (ye)-be
(44/--/--) dokeite, ye-think
(47/--/--) humin, to-you (dat.)

The following are in Matthew 25 as part of the parable about the ten virgins:

(6/--/--) exerchesthe, go-ye-out/(ye)-go-forth
(8/--/--) dote, (ye)-give
(8/--/--) humoon, of-you/your
(9/--/--) poreuesthe, go-ye
(9/--/--) agorasate, buy-ye
(13/--/--) greegoreite, watch-ye
(13/--/--) oidate, ye-do-know

The following are in Matthew 25 as part of the parable about the talents:

(28/--/--) arate, (ye)-take
(30/--/--) ekbalete, cast-ye-out

The following are in Matthew 25 as part of the Return of the Son of Man (commonly referred to as the Separation of the Sheep from the Goats):

(34/--/--) deute, (ye)-come
(34/--/--) kleeronomeesate, (ye)-inherit
(35/--/--) edookate, ye-gave
(35/--/--) epotisate, ye-gave-drink
(35/--/--) suneegagete, ye-took-in
(36/--/--) periebalete, ye-clothed
(36/--/--) epeskepsasthe, ye-visited
(36/--/--) eelthate, ye-came
(40/--/--) epoieesate, ye-have-done/ye-did
(40/--/--) epoieesate, ye-have-done/ye-did
(41/--/--) poreuesthe, (ye)-depart/(ye)-go
(42/--/--) edookate, ye-gave/ye-did-give
(42/--/--) epotisate, ye-gave-drink
(43/--/--) suneegagete, ye-took-in
(43/--/--) periebalete, ye-clothed
(43/--/--) epeskepsasthe, ye-visited
(45/--/--) epoieesate, ye-did
(45/--/--) epoieesate, ye-did

Of course, these last few are referring to speeches within the parables and the future when the King returns and talks directly to the nations that are divided before Him as though they were flocks of sheep and goats; HOWEVER, the rest of the Olivet Discourse, when He is specifically warning His disciples, He is speaking to them about what THEY are about to face in the next few years! These portions of the prophecy were DIRECT warnings to them about the things that they would face in their lifetimes within the first century.

[WilliamL]

On 7/30/2016 at 10:15 AM, Retrobyter said:

Matthew 24:17-19. Let him who is on the house-top not come down — It is well known that the houses of the Jews, as well as those of the ancient Greeks and Romans, were flat on the top, for them to walk upon, and had usually stairs on the outside, by which they might ascend and descend without coming into the house. In the walled cities, these flat-roofed houses usually formed continued terraces from one end of the city to the other, which terraces terminated at the gates. The meaning therefore here is, Let not him who is walking on the house-top come down to take any thing out of his house; but let him instantly pursue his course along the tops of houses, and escape out of the city gate as fast as he possibly can. Neither let him which is in the field, &c. — Our Saviour makes use of these expressions to intimate, that their flight must be as sudden and hasty as Lot’s was out of Sodom. And the Christians escaping just as they did was the more providential, because afterward all egress from the city was prevented. And wo unto them that are with child, &c. — For such will not be in a condition to flee, neither will they be well able to endure the distress and hardships of the siege. This wo was sufficiently fulfilled in the cruel slaughters which were made both of the women and children, and particularly in that grievous famine which so miserably afflicted Jerusalem during the siege. See notes on Deuteronomy 28:53-57.

This makes SENSE in a city with walls. It does NOT make sense in our times and cultures with our sprawling cities without walls! Even Jerusalem today is not confined to the "Old City" which does have walls!

Yerushalayim (Jerusalem) today is a sprawling metropolis with high-rise buildings and without walls (although it does have a security fence with check points to limit terrorism). Only the small section of the city called the "Old City" still has walls.

So, if such a city was attacked today, it would make no sense to stay on one's "house-top [and] not come down!" However, in the first century A.D., it made perfectly good sense for one to escape from the walled city as described above in the commentaries quoted.

This whole argument ignores the clear meaning of the prophecy, which you have taken out of its full context:

Matt. 24:17 “Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. 18 And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes."

Luke 17:31 “In that day, he who is on the housetop, and his goods are in the house, let him not come down to take them away. And likewise the one who is in the field, let him not turn back. 32 Remember Lot’s wife. 33 Whoever seeks to save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it."

Jerusalem is not even mentioned in these parallel passages from Matthew, Mark, and Luke, only Judea. The whole import of the passage has to do with the choice between trusting in things for one's safety, rather than fully trusting in God's protection. Don't take anything, don't look back, just go. That has nothing at all to do with fleeing to the wall by running across rooftops.

[Marcus O'Reillius]

On 7/30/2016 at 0:15 PM, Retrobyter said:

We've established actually four points so far: First, that Yeshua` and His disciples were all children of Israel.
Second, that there would come "false Messiahs" and "false prophets," presumably posing as prophets of God, pointing to those "Messiahs."
Third, that Luke, like Matthew and Mark, all speak about the discourse that Yeshua` gives upon Har HaZeitiym (the Mount of Olives), and 
Fourth, there are NOT two separate questions or events in view.
Fifth, there are certain contextual keys that make no sense outside of the culture and times of the first-century Jewish city, Yerushalayim (Jerusalem), specifically what is referred to today as the "Old City":

First of all, if Jesus' audience is Jewish, and He only preached in Israel, then all other teachings of His to His Disciples don't apply to us as well?  Or are not the Disciples the very nexus of the Church?
Secondly, I don't see how false prophets relegates the Olivet Discourse to the past.
Third, the placement of the Discourse also does not relegate the Olivet Discourse to the past.
Fourth, if this were about the First Jewish Revolt (and not even extending to the Second Jewish Revolt where they are scattered from Israel) - why isn't the first question some of the Disciples pose answered?  Jesus ONLY answers the second question - when He will come again.  He did not Return in the first century.
Finally, while that was peculiar to the first century, and it still is a feature in many homes in that arid region - as a euphemism it becomes little more than an idiom of speech which can be applied to any situation where people first notice calamity coming and take urgent action to flee.

But what interest me most is how you are going to assign applicability to the abomination(s) desolation.

Furthermore, how is it that the Great Tribulation comes afterward - AND - is the most terrible time ever?

Was the First Jewish Revolt, a conflict so small it didn't rate as a war, nor did it interrupt the Pax Romana, or Roman peace which it had established by its iron rule - indeed the worst time ever?

Did the slaughter of a mid-sized city outdo the carnage of the Holocaust?

Did the killing of the Romans in putting down a limited rebellion kill more people than Attila the Hun?

If the Olivet Discourse concerns only the Jews - how is it then possible that the Great Tribulaiton of those days in the first century will never be exceeded?