# A Solution to the Olivet Discourse



## Alex the Less (Dec 24, 2019)

The prophetic part of the Olivet Discourse is found in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. From these accounts, it is clear that Matthew agrees with Mark in substance. Luke’s account is the one which gives supplementary material that helps us decipher the various elements. Jesus used the phrase “pregnant women and nursing mothers” twice in giving this discourse to His disciples. In this view, neither Matthew or Luke are complete in reproducing fully what Jesus said to His disciples.

Luke 21.20-24 records the first use of the phrase (vs. 23) referring to the distress of the fall of Jerusalem during the Jewish Revolt of 66-70 C.E. This is clearly indicated by vs. 24: _They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. _

The second usage of “pregnant women and nursing mothers” is given in Matthew and Mark and refers to the time of the “end” of the age. This key phrase is often conflated by students of scripture. Recognizing its two usages, referring to both 70 C.E. and the consummation of the age, will clarify about when the various events transpire.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Dec 24, 2019)

Alex the Less said:


> 70 C.E.


I think you meant to say "_A.D. 70." _

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 2


----------



## Alex the Less (Dec 24, 2019)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> I think you meant to say "_A.D. 70." _


Why? What is wrong with C.E.? 
Anyway, do you think my solution clarifies the discourse? How do you look at it?


----------



## wcf_linux (Dec 24, 2019)

Alex the Less said:


> Why? What is wrong with C.E.?
> Anyway, do you think my solution clarifies the discourse? How do you look at it?



I mean, C.E. certainly exists, but why ADd ADditional epoch names?


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Dec 24, 2019)

Alex the Less said:


> Why? What is wrong with C.E.?
> Anyway, do you think my solution clarifies the discourse? How do you look at it?



The term C. E. was invented by atheists as a way of avoiding having to acknowledge that each year is a year of our Lord. Funny how it’s still 2019 though.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Dec 24, 2019)

Alex the Less said:


> Why? What is wrong with C.E.?


"Common Era" is a term preferred and pushed by those who want to erase the West's distinctive Christian identity. We have a choice between a term that affirms the centrality of Christ's incarnation to human history or a term that obfuscates it. I'm not sure why any Christian would choose the latter.



Alex the Less said:


> Anyway, do you think my solution clarifies the discourse? How do you look at it?


I do. You've summed up my own view of the matter.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Dec 25, 2019)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> "Common Era" is a term preferred and pushed by those who want to erase the West's distinctive Christian identity. We have a choice between a term that affirms the centrality of Christ's incarnation to human history or a term that obfuscates it. I'm not sure why any Christian would choose the latter.



I often have thought that it is no small proof of the centrality of Jesus, the Savior of the world, that time itself on the Earth is divided by the greatest event in the history of the World. Time Before Christ, and, _anno domini_ -- The Year of the Lord. Praise the Lord for the centrality of the Savior who divides, the _Chronos _of the World. He is Lord, even of time and history.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 2


----------

