Talk:Olivet Discourse

Request for improvement of power link
This article contains the following passage:


 * ===The Tribulation===


 * As well as the destruction of the temple, Jesus is described by the synoptics as warning that when the abomination of desolation is seen, the denizens of Judea should flee to the mountains as a matter of such urgency that they shouldn't even return to get things from their homes, or turn round just to pick up a coat. Jesus is also described as warning that if it happened in winter, things would be even more intolerable, and that either way things would be singularly dreadful, and worse than anything that had gone before. More specifically, Jesus is portrayed as fleshing out these vague references to a situation by stating that the sun would darken, and the moon would not give off light, that the stars would fall, and the  powers that are in heaven would be shaken.

The word 'powers' (8th word from end of the passage) is a link to the Power disambiguation page. This page contains many possible meanings for power; some are obviously irrelevant, such as electric power. There are two articles that might be relevant, one is Deity, and another is Angels (which mentions that powers are one of the orders of angels.)

I request that someone who understands this passage either change the link so it points to an appropriate article, or change it to an ordinary word instead of a link. Gerry Ashton 04:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that there are several interpretations - with different religious groups favouring one or other. Gnostic interpretations of the passage are extremely different to Protestant interpretations, for example, especially around key phrases like the powers, so to favour one meaning over another is an example of strong POV. Consequently, if the link must exist then it really should be to a disambiguation page, or one that discusses how various religious groups interpret the powers; the latter doesn't exist, leaving only the former option. Clinkophonist 18:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll leave the power link as is. Gerry Ashton 20:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the initial complaint, and find the power link irrelevant even under the most obscure interpretation of the passage. RWZero (talk) 06:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Gnostic interpretations are usually considered as not very impartial and as not very considerate of other gospel evidence; in general they are a great deal more pov oriented than the most "fundamentalist" interpretations of the last two centuries. Indeed there are different interpretations - let us choose those which are properly contextual. Gnostic interpretations are rather irrelevant, they are based on a belief system and metaphysics of more than a millenium ago. There are some new agey people trying to reconcile gnosticism and Christianity but I have seen no compelling syntheses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.200.2.87 (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV/ poorly done.
The quality of writing on this page is really very poor, also it is not at all objective, instead it is written from a single Christian perspective. Rjbonacolta 14:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I would add there should be some sort of way to define "scholar". There's little here that has anything to do with actual scholarship. Maybe, "theologians"? Can't be scholarship when you start with the answer (Jesus = lord). That's theology.

Agreed -- the whole article is from a distinctly American evangelical perspective. There's nothing here relevant to the vast majority of Christians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.35.146 (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

"it includes Jesus' descriptions of the end times" - This is very clearly not neutral. Very few would use this sort of language when describing the meaning of the Olivet discourse. I will edit this shortly. GPeoples (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Citation 5
Is from a Christian website, is currently unavailable, and in any case is completely subjective and its views not within the purview of an encyclopedia. Please change this. Also, the statement connected with it is highly controversial. While there seems to be a need for this article, it is in need of serious attention from scholars uninterested in advancing, if I may coin a word, a theodoxical position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.98.231 (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

formatting is messed up.
the page is displayign below the side bar. someone who is more skilled at editing should fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.51.197.7 (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

kglp
In the first eshalon (3-1/2 years) of the tribulation (the tribulation = 7 years before the millenial reign of Christ+) the Jews are commanded to flee to the mountains, this for their own safety and preparedness. In the second eshalon (the last 3-1/2 years) the Jews are commanded to come down and fight. The end of which is then the battle of Armageddon. *see Meggido in other articles posted. The purpose of Armageddon is the preparation and cleansing of the world for Jesus Christs near-future reign as promised. (the second advent)

Then the glorious reign of our Lord Jesus Christ+ for 1000 years (the millenium). While Satan is imprisoned. He is let out at the end of that dispensation for one final revolt which of course ends in his defeat. He is let out as another demonstraton of God's grace in giving everyone chances to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as our savour. Even the most contempt of creatures is afforded God's grace and given equal priveledge and opportunity as we all. The issue in this world for mankind is volition. For or against Christ. Just as Satan and 1/3rd of the fallen angels had volition to choose for or against Christ+.

Any other effort or discussion to try to glorify oneself over the real issue of Christ is not appropriate> I personally don't care about all the other "evaluations" in trying to be some kind of intellectual spirtual expert. It does not impress anyone. You should save that for the pool hall or psuedo churches. Please excuse me. —Preceding undated comment apparently signed with "kglp" (70.218.22.168, talk) 02:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

JMR
This is a poor article, written from a surface-literal/fundamentalist perspective that takes the text at face value, with zero interest in treating source material from apocalyptic literature traditions, whether Jesus actually said this or was it partly a later interpolation,e tc. Some authentic scholarship needs to be reflected in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.161.224 (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Imminence
"In the Olivet Discourse, Jesus stated that when all these signs are seen, his Second coming would be imminent." Well, it's only referring to his Second Coming in some interpretations, as the "Interpretations" section explains. StAnselm (talk) 04:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Glenn Beck
Do we really need to have a couple of paragraphs on Glenn Beck in the Imminence section? Seems rather WP:Recentism-like to me. Similar for the Bernard Lewis quote. LukeSurlt c 23:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Citation error
Neither Joel 2:30-31 nor Revelation 6:12-17 stated both the sun and moon would become dark. Those scriptures stated the sun will be severely darkened and the moon becomes as blood. Although the color of blood can be dark, both descriptions clearly indicate differences in darkness between the sun and moon. As viewed from the Earth, the larger celestial body becomes black and our satellite becomes red like blood. The black-red combination preceeds the Day of Wrath and the dark-dark combination appears with distinctively different phenomena. With respect to physical interpretations of those descriptions, it is interesting to note that the Greek root used in Revelation 6:12 for the Sun's darkness is the one that was used in Luke 23:44 to describe the darkness at the crucifixion. Tcisco (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge Second Coming Prophecy
Over on the page Second Coming Prophecy there is a year-old proposal to merge that page here. Can I just say I agree with that proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just nigel (talk • contribs) 03:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)