Who said anything about a rapture? Not I. The tribulation of "those days" as it pertained
to the Jews, already started long ago when Jesus said it would, right after the AOD in 70 ad. But then again, if you reject the Temple mount Jesus and the disciples were looking at
with their own eyes as already being destroyed to fulfill that prophecy concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple mount, then you will also reject the tribulation of "those days" having already started.
Again, you must consider that Mark 13:1-2 and Mat 24:1-3 took place on the Temple Mount. That discussion was with all of the disciples. That discussion ended with verse 2 in the case of Mark and verse 3 in Matthew's account. There are no chapter or verse numbers in the original text. Those were put there by the translators in the early 1600s. So, we have to consider context and understand the big picture of the day.
Later, as they were on the Mount of Olives, 4 disciples started a new discussion and asked a specific question. The "temple" was not mentioned in any of the 3 versions of the questions nor any of the 3 replies of Jesus. You will not find the word, "temple" after Mat 24:1 until Mat 26:55. Same thing in Mark. It is last used in Mark 13:3 and not used again until Mark 14:49. Luke's account tells us this:
Luke 21:37
And in the daytime He was teaching in the temple, but at night He went out and stayed on the mountain called Olivet.
In Matthew and Mark's account it appears they discussed the temple then walked immediately to the Mount of Olives and asked their famous question and continued the discussion about the temple. But Luke tells us it was day time when Jesus taught in the Temple and nighttime when He went to the Mount of Olives. So, there was a time lapse of perhaps several hours. Perhaps they went somewhere in between, had dinner, etc. We don't know.
You have to look back to what Jesus was teaching about in the Temple. He had a long discussion with the various religious leaders about various topics. Jesus got into a heated discussion with some of the Sadducees concerning the resurrection as they tried to trip Him up with their question about the man who died and had 7 wives and a brother. Go back to Luke 20, Mat 22, Mark 12 and get a flavor for what was happening and being discussed in more detail for a longer period of time then the brief temple comments as they were leaving.
Many of you want to read Mat 24 in a vacuum without taking the time to fully understand the context of what was being discussed earlier that day. You ignore the long and heated battle Jesus had with the religious leaders concerning the resurrection, and other topics.
It was the end times and Jesus' return that was being asked about at the Olivet. Even if the 4 disciples were confused and thought the temple destruction happened in the same era as Christ return, Christ ignores it in His response to the question. Again, Christ NEVER mentions the temple in any of the three accounts of His reply. You think he does and this is where you err and I can prove it.
Consider this:
[SUP]34 [/SUP]Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.
[SUP]30 [/SUP]Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.
[SUP]32 [/SUP]Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all things take place.
Jesus states the above in all three accounts. This means that "ALL THINGS" Jesus discussed in His reply happens to ONE GENERATION. ONE GENERATION SEES EVERYTHING that Jesus relates. This includes His Return, the False Christs, the Great Tribulation of Israel, the Abomination of Desolation, the Wars and Rumors or Wars, the Earthquakes, etc., etc. Therefore the Temple events of AD 70 could not be included in Jesus' reply because its destruction was not seen by the same generation that will see His return.
For Jesus to have been discussing Temple era AD 70 events, the Abomination of Desolation would have to have been seen. It wasn't back in AD 70. Remember, Jesus references Daniel's A of D. The only place Daniel mentions the A of D is in Chapters 11 and 12. In the context of Chapter 11, the King of the North was going back and forth attacking the King of the South and vice versa. Titus didn't do this. Titus also could not have been the King to the North because he was from Rome which is due west of Israel. Daniel tells us that the King of the North will come to his end between the seas and the glorious holy mountain in Dan 11:45. Titus died in Italy.
Further, if Jesus was discussing AD 70 events, he would have needed to make a transition to jump ahead 2,000+ years to discuss His eventual return. He never does. Also, the events listed by Christ before verse 15 A of D and the start of the Great Tribulation in verse 21 were not met before AD 70. There were no false Christs of any note prior to Simeon bar Kosevah in 132 AD and he never claimed to be the Messiah, this idea was started by others.
Also, the Gospel could not have been considered preached to the whole world until approximately now. Jesus makes clear:
[SUP]14 [/SUP]And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.
This is a prerequisite to the A of D and GT of verses 15 and 21 respectively, and certainly was nowhere near done by AD 70.
Based on years and years of study and all these facts set forth, I conclude that nothing Jesus says after Mat 24:3 dealt with circa AD 70 events, instead, all of it deals with one generation, the same one which will witness His glorious return.
