Robert's Gospel According to the Apostle Paul

[George Affleck]

He destroyed all flesh, excepting that which he made special and stated exception,.

Genesis 6:17-19 KJV
(17) And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
(18) But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
(19) And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

There are two qualifiers stated to "all flesh" including:

1) Wherein is the breath of life (he does not mean fish)
2) And those who specifically would board the ark.

But otherwise yes, he did destroy all flesh, and no flesh survived.

Exactly correct.
This tells us that there are cases, in scripture, to which "all" does not necessarily mean the "all" that we are expecting.

In the case of Matt 24:30KJV the subject matter continues to be, from the end of chapter 23, the great tribulation which would befall Jerusalem and the Jewish people. This is the context, the qualifier.
The only break comes in verse 34 which specifies that all that Jesus had talked about would happen during that present generation and then it moves to a different subject. (Tet would perhaps disagree with the last part of that statement)

 

[George Affleck]

The Jewish countryside is not "all flesh" but had Jesus meant that, could he not have used another phrase such as "all Israel" or "all the house of Israel" or

Matthew 15:24 KJV
(24) But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Acts 2:36 KJV
(36) Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Just noting that there are terms used that specify Israel when it is meant to distinguish them from other people. "All flesh" would indicate "all flesh."

I think you do not mean "all flesh" here. I am pretty sure you mean "all the tribes of the earth".

I understand this argument and it is not necessarily a bad one except that I don't consider arguing from omission very strong.
If we consider his audience, a select group of Jewish disciples, the language is not surprising. The statements in the quotations you gave were meant for a distinctly different group.

 

[George Affleck]

What is the context of this statement of John's disciples? Is it in the reference of a prophecy from He who made the World and all that is in it of a cataclysm which can only be ended by the return of the Great God from heaven? or with reference to those that were in the area of "beyond Jordan?"

You are proving my point. Context is everything.

 

[Rosenritter]

Your above claim actually supports "all flesh" pertaining to the inhabitants of Jerusalem only.

The only people the tribulation was to happen to were the unbelieving Jews.
Why would Jesus only warn those in Jerusalem to flee to the mountains, and those in the country, not to go to Jerusalem, if it was worldwide?

No, the discipline of reading a passage in its sensible implied context does not support "all flesh is only the inhabitants of Jerusalem." With the methods you are using, it would also take a teenager's statement of "No one understands me" and use that as justification to warp "no one" to "No one has seen the Father, who is in heaven" to neutralize the plain meaning. "See? No one doesn't really mean no one!"

You asked, "Why would Jesus warn those in Jerusalem to flee..." and the answer is, he didn't. I think you read something into that?

Matthew 24:15-16 KJV
(15) When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand
(16) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

Jerusalem is a city within Judea, but surely you acknowledge that Judea is a much bigger area than just Jerusalem. The point is that it's not an instruction to flee from a specific city, but it's a general instruction to flee from away from populated areas. Not for Jerusalem, but for the entire country. And considering that he was speaking to Jews of a Jewish mindset that only lived in Judea, those are mountains they are familiar with.

By analogy if I were speaking to people on the North American East Coast, I could say in case of nuclear war, "for those on the East Coast, hide in the Applachians" but that shouldn't be construed as thinking that a nuclear war only affects Boston. So just for reminder of the scale of these words:

Jerusalem is to Boston as Judeae -is to the NA East Coast and as the Judeae mountains are to the Appalachians

So why would Jesus say that those who were in Judeae to flee to the mountains? Because that's the sensible hiding spot if you are in Judaea. It wouldn't do much good to describe specific instructions for lands that they weren't familiar with, but the principle of "hide yourself" would be the same.

It's still true today.

No city has had as many people die than Jerusalem in 70AD. You can add the deaths from Hiroshima and Nagasaki together, and it's not even half the amount of people who died in Jerusalem in 70AD.

(Col 1:23)...This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.

We don't know how many people died from the flood. What makes you think it was more than the amount of people who died in Jerusalem?

It's hard for me to know whether you're kidding me right now or not. A conservative estimate for the pre-flood population is 10 trillion people, and that's not counting the mass deaths of every land based air breathing animal. TEN TRILLION. We are still using the pre-flood people and animals as fuel for our automobiles. I yanked this site below randomly and it has similar estimates that I've seen from others.

https://biblescienceguy.wordpress.com/2014/06/18/4-population-growth-how-many-died-in-noahs-flood/

Are you seriously saying that the Jewish population killed by the Roman army in 70 AD was greater destruction and peril for all flesh than Noah's flood? Or was that a joke?

That's not what Paul said in Colossians 1:23

Wait... you mean this?

Colossians 1:23 KJV(23) If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

"Was preached to every creature" is a Jewish term for Jew AND Gentile. But even if you wanted to try to take Paul's phrase out of context and apply it to "no flesh should be saved alive' then that would mean that Jews and Gentiles were threatened with extinction in this localized peril of Jerusalem... which was not the case, was it?

But that seems like quite a stretch to claim that "the gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations" ... can you honestly say that China had received the gospel by 70 AD? The native American nations in North and South America? You know it hadn't, so the only thing you could do there is to say that it must be a grand speaking for a very small preaching. But does it sound like Jesus would use an scalar-wise insignificant amount of preaching as a predecessor sign for the end of the world?

Look at this again please:

Matthew 24:29-31 KJV
(29) Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
(30) And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
(31) And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

If all this has happened already, then where are those signs? The sun was not darkened, the moon did not go out, and the sign of the Son of man did not appear in heaven. Jesus was not seen coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And his angels were not sent out with the sound of a trumpet. None of this adds up in your suggested scenario as it specifically fails the tests also contained in those same passages. Your solution creates more problems than it purports to solve.

 

[George Affleck]

On that token, what is (are) the stated exception(s) for "all flesh" in Matthew 24:22? does it list any?

The qualifier is the context.
He has been, and is still, talking about the coming destruction of the temple and the city and how they should escape.
And, I believe, He is telling them that the Romans will be interested only in the city and not the plundering or eradication of the Jewish people.
Once the city is taken, it is over.
They are told not to stay in the city once they see the Roman army.
If they do that, they will survive.

 

[Rosenritter]

I think I should yield to you on this. I said if someone could find a case where tribes is used which does not obviously mean the tribes of Israel, I would admit that it could mean those other than the tribes of Israel.

This does not mean that the above verses in Revelation cannot mean the tribes of Israel when it uses the word kindred; the phrase could mean that without changing anything whatsoever, but it is not obvious and that was my challenge. Because the sentences are, without doubt, all inclusive, it also means that the tribes of Israel are included somewhere in the list. The word φυλή can be rendered "tribes" or "kindred".

So, because it is not specified, I need to acknowledge that it is possible that Jesus did not mean the tribes of Israel at Matt 24:30KJV and that either interpretation would acceptable.

Having said that, I still feel that Jesus' meaning with regard to "all the tribes of the earth" refers to all those who trace their lineage through the twelve tribes. At Jerusalem, in Judea and Palestine, Egypt, Africa, Europe, etc. Acts 2 tells us there were Jewish settlements in every country in the known world and my belief is that His meaning was "all the tribes scattered on the earth" instead of "all the peoples in existence".

The other reason I lean this way is that, of all peoples, the Jews had the only reason to mourn. The Romans didn't care; theirs was a military exercise only. The Christians celebrated Christ's death because of the resurrection. The Jews lost everything and had every reason to mourn.

Awesome, there's no point in fighting on that then. So speaking openly, I understand that this particular passage (or the harmony of those passages from the different gospels) does sound a little confusing (perhaps more than a little) but I would point to the ultimate sanity test that some of those events he describes obviously hasn't happened yet. Jesus hasn't returned in the skies with his angels and the sound of trumpets. That's the type of thing you don't miss when it happens.

More ever, when Christ returns it speaks of the armies of the world rising against him and carnage resulting, but the world thereafter is under his rule. If that happened and this (that we see around us) is the world under His rule, then we are in big trouble if "this" is as God would have things when he's in charge. Again, sanity check, this world isn't it.

 

[Rosenritter]

Exactly correct.
This tells us that there are cases, in scripture, to which "all" does not necessarily mean the "all" that we are expecting.

In the case of Matt 24:30KJV the subject matter continues to be, from the end of chapter 23, the great tribulation which would befall Jerusalem and the Jewish people. This is the context, the qualifier.
The only break comes in verse 34 which specifies that all that Jesus had talked about would happen during that present generation and then it moves to a different subject. (Tet would perhaps disagree with the last part of that statement)

The context is not the great tribulation which would befall Jerusalem and the Jewish people. It's a mixed context, thus the confusing aspects.

Matthew 24:3 KJV
(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?

The disciples assumed that if the temple were to be destroyed "not one stone upon another" that would be the end of the world (Mat 24:2) and so that shaped the question they asked, where they linked the two things together as if they were the same. I'm suggesting that you and they made the same error of thinking.

In their mindset, destruction of the temple could only happen at the end of the world. So they asked about different things, which are not necessarily the same (even if they assumed it would be so):

1) When shall these things me (destruction of the temple)
2) What shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

Try reading the passage with the mindset that Jesus is answering multiple questions, and take note of where he indicates that in spite of wars and rumors of wars and being delivered up to be killed, the end is not yet.

He rather reassures them that the gospel must first be preached to the whole world, and when the sun goes dark and the moon goes out and when they see him return in the clouds, that is the end, but not before.I understand confusion on "this generation shall not pass" but there are other possible resolutions than concluding that we somehow all missed the second coming and that Jesus established himself as King of Kings and this around us is what we get.

1) "This generation shall not pass" might mean "the elect" as in the elect shall not entirely disappear from this world until Christ comes to redeem them in the skies. This preserves the sense of "all" in "This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled" although it allows "generation" to have a more vague symbolic sense,

2) "till all these things be fulfilled" might be referring to a more specific set of things which we cannot see grouped in the same way that Christ was referring to them, such intending to mean "all the signs concerning the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem." This keeps the more usual use of "generation" (including those who were alive at that time) while allowing that even simple hand gestures could change the application of words to grouping.

3) The third alternative is as what you seem to be suggesting, which fails due to applying the rest of the tests with hindsight. Jesus hasn't returned, the sun did not go out, the angels did not arrive with the sound of the trumpet. Regardless, it isn't as if this interpretation was entirely literal either, as "all flesh" has to become "only the flesh of those in Jerusalem" and "all tribes" has to become "the tribes of Israel."

I'm leaning towards option two being more feasible, but the third would be right out for reasons already expressed.

 

[Rosenritter]

The qualifier is the context.
He has been, and is still, talking about the coming destruction of the temple and the city and how they should escape.
And, I believe, He is telling them that the Romans will be interested only in the city and not the plundering or eradication of the Jewish people.
Once the city is taken, it is over.
They are told not to stay in the city once they see the Roman army.
If they do that, they will survive.

Matthew 24:22 KJV
(22) And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

But it didn't say "unless the elect flee the city, no flesh should be saved" but unless those days should be shortened. Were the days shortened? I'm assuming that we agree that the elect were not exterminated.

 

[George Affleck]

Awesome, there's no point in fighting on that then. So speaking openly, I understand that this particular passage (or the harmony of those passages from the different gospels) does sound a little confusing (perhaps more than a little) but I would point to the ultimate sanity test that some of those events he describes obviously hasn't happened yet. Jesus hasn't returned in the skies with his angels and the sound of trumpets. That's the type of thing you don't miss when it happens.

I can appreciate the "sanity test" that you are referring to. I was once at the place where Matthew 24 made very little sense to me according to any eschatalogical system; and I know them all. That is until I started studying it and weighing the options. It has taken a long time but I am now completely comfortable with everything prior to verse 34 as being fulfilled within that present generation and being able to back it all up with scripture.

For me the "sanity test" has to do with elegance, simplicity, reason, and knowledge of scripture. A phenomenon that I have noticed over the years is how egocentric our view of Christianity is, especially with prophecy and how it skews our expectations. It becomes impossible, sometimes, for Christians in our culture to accept that our generation may not remarkable in God's economy.
"God just HAS to do something big for me to see because my expectations of Him demand it!!"

There is another phenomenon that is more sinister. Without the excitement of futurism, they see little beauty in salvation.

More ever, when Christ returns it speaks of the armies of the world rising against him and carnage resulting, but the world thereafter is under his rule. If that happened and this (that we see around us) is the world under His rule, then we are in big trouble if "this" is as God would have things when he's in charge. Again, sanity check, this world isn't it.

These things would take years for us to consider. But the short answer, for me, is that none of those things occur when He returns because they have either occurred or are now in process. In other words, He is ruling now and He returns at the end of time to take out those who are still alive. The carnage in the Kingdom of God is spiritual, just like the Kingdom is spiritual.

God has made things spiritually right. He has made a way for us to fellowship with Him by grace through faith in His Son from now into eternity because that is His only purpose. Those who are looking for Him to make things physically right do not understand His purposes. This world is destined to be burned up.

Because we are obviously of different persuasions on this, I doubt we can make much of a dent in it. And I agree with you that it seems, on the surface, that much of the first part of Matthew 24 cannot have happened.

 

[Rosenritter]

I can appreciate the "sanity test" that you are referring to. I was once at the place where Matthew 24 made very little sense to me according to any eschatalogical system; and I know them all. That is until I started studying it and weighing the options. It has taken a long time but I am now completely comfortable with everything prior to verse 34 as being fulfilled within that present generation and being able to back it all up with scripture.

For me the "sanity test" has to do with elegance, simplicity, reason, and knowledge of scripture. A phenomenon that I have noticed over the years is how egocentric our view of Christianity is, especially with prophecy and how it skews our expectations. It becomes impossible, sometimes, for Christians in our culture to accept that our generation may not remarkable in God's economy.
"God just HAS to do something big for me to see because my expectations of Him demand it!!"

There is another phenomenon that is more sinister. Without the excitement of futurism, they see little beauty in salvation.

These things would take years for us to consider. But the short answer, for me, is that none of those things occur when He returns because they have either occurred or are now in process. In other words, He is ruling now and He returns at the end of time to take out those who are still alive. The carnage in the Kingdom of God is spiritual, just like the Kingdom is spiritual.

God has made things spiritually right. He has made a way for us to fellowship with Him by grace through faith in His Son from now into eternity because that is His only purpose. Those who are looking for Him to make things physically right do not understand His purposes. This world is destined to be burned up.

Because we are obviously of different persuasions on this, I doubt we can make much of a dent in it. And I agree with you that it seems, on the surface, that much of the first part of Matthew 24 cannot have happened.

Matthew 24:21 KJV(21) For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

But perspective, again, World War One, the war to end all wars? World War Two, proving that the War to end all Wars was not the War to end all Wars? The Jewish Holocaust? The Russian Holocaust which killed far many more than the Jewish Holocaust?

The tribulation that Jesus is talking about is a tribulation to end all tribulations. If that tribulation is a war, it is the war to end all wars. The destruction of Jerusalem though prophesied both directly and indirectly was not the tribulation to end all tribulations.

https://www.ushmm.org/confront-genocide/cases/cambodia/introduction/cambodia-1975

From April 17, 1975, to January 7, 1979, the Khmer Rouge perpetrated one of the greatest crimes of the 20th century. Nearly two million people died under the rule of the fanatical Communist movement, which imposed a ruthless agenda of forced labor, thought control, and mass execution on Cambodia.

You were speaking of "egoCentric Christianity..." but what of Jew-Centric? Do atrocities and genocides not matter or really count unless it happens to Jews? Is it only tribulation if it happens to those who observe sabbaths and abstain from meats unclean?

I sympathize with wanting to make the prophesies make sense that we understand now, but perhaps it might also be considered ego-centric that we (today) must understand all things. Some things may not be fully understood until after the fact, but it should be worth consideration that a fulfilled prophecy should make better sense after the fact than before. A proposed fulfillment shouldn't contradict its conditions.

As for your concerns about futurism and beauty of salvation, or God ruling now, I would say it should be obvious that Christ has not returned and God is not ruling now.

Matthew 26:29 KJV
(29) But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

None of those that heard that statement have drunk new wine with Christ in his Father's kingdom. They are dead until the resurrection, and we know that resurrection is a literal resurrection because we are to be raised as Christ was raised. Christ was not (correction) invisibly raised as a ghost or a warm feeling in someone's heart, he was seen, he spoke, and he had substance.

Psalms 82:8 KJV
(8) Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

Matthew 5:5 KJV
(5) Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

Philippians 2:10-11 KJV
(10) That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
(11) And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.


That hasn't happened yet. The meek do not inherit the earth, it is seized by the strong. God has not arose to judge among the gods, and inherited all nations. Every tongue certainly does not confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

Isaiah 11:6-9 KJV
(6) The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
(7) And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
(8) And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
(9) They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

That hasn't happened yet either. Evil flourishes, the world we see around us is reigned by spiritual powers but those are not the powers of God. The devil is not yet bound, this is his world and we can see around us and see who it ultimately worships by its fruits and actions.

Ephesians 6:11-12 KJV
(11) Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
(12) For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

If I am to summarize, our faith in Christ should enable us to expect far far better of the coming kingdom of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords than something invisible alongside a cesspool of evil and blasphemy. "All things under his feet" it says, 1 Corinthians 15:27.

Hebrews 2:8 KJV
(8) Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.

Be willing to expect more. This world is not under his feet yet... but it will be.

 

[tetelestai]

The point is that it's not an instruction to flee from a specific city, but it's a general instruction to flee from away from populated areas.

Nope

Jesus made it clear that everything He prophesied, pertained only to the unbelieving Jews and Jerusalem:

(Luke 19:41-44) As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42 and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. 43 The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44 They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.”

This has absolutely nothing to do with anyone else in any other city. It specifically pertains to the Jews in Jerusalem.

Moreover, history refutes you. We know from secular history that everything Jesus said, happened 40 years later, and it only happened to Jerusalem, and the unbelieving Jews inside Jerusalem.

 

[tetelestai]

A conservative estimate for the pre-flood population is 10 trillion people

LOL....

Noah was born 1,056 years after Adam according to Genesis. He was 600 years old when the flood came.

If the flood happened around 2500 BC, that is about 4,500 years ago.

So, according to you, the earth's population went from 2 people to 10 trillion in roughly 1,600 years, but only from 8 people to 7.7 billion people(today) in 4,500 years?

That makes no sense.

 

[Right Divider]

(Rev 13:18) This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man.[a] That number is 666.

How much wisdom does it take to count?

Rev 13:18 KJV Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.​

Ask God.

 

[tetelestai]

Rev 13:18 KJV Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.​

Ask God.

You do know that addition is considered a calculation?

Apparently you've looked at too many Iron Maiden album covers, and think the beast has to have "666" on his forehead or something.

 

[Right Divider]

1. Why would you say that the verse numbering is not inspired? Do you say this based on specific evidence or assumption?

Where does the Bible say that they are "inspired". Are you just trying to be obnoxious?

2. Do you likewise say that the canonization of the books of our bible are also uninspired?

I made no comment on the subject.

Again, is there specific evidence you would use for this determination (for or against) or is this assumption (you haven't given this specific thought before this?)

Please go ahead and give us the argument in favor of your assumption

 

[Right Divider]

You do know that addition is considered a calculation?

Ok.

Apparently you've looked at too many Iron Maiden album covers, and think the beast has to have "666" on his forehead or something.

Nope.

I was hoping that you could actually give some insight into the "count" or the "calculation". I hoped for far too much.

 

[tetelestai]

Jesus was not seen coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Did God literally ride a cloud into Egypt in Isaiah 19:1?

Did God literally stand on mountains in Micah 1:3?

The same metaphoric language used in the OT to describe the wrath of God in the form of an army invading a country is what is used in the NT to describe the Roman army invading Jerusalem.

 

[George Affleck]

Matthew 24:21 KJV(21) For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

But perspective, again, World War One, the war to end all wars? World War Two, proving that the War to end all Wars was not the War to end all Wars? The Jewish Holocaust? The Russian Holocaust which killed far many more than the Jewish Holocaust?

The tribulation that Jesus is talking about is a tribulation to end all tribulations. If that tribulation is a war, it is the war to end all wars. The destruction of Jerusalem though prophesied both directly and indirectly was not the tribulation to end all tribulations.

https://www.ushmm.org/confront-genocide/cases/cambodia/introduction/cambodia-1975

Tribulation is oppression, anguish, distress and affliction, not just physical war.

There was only one nation ever chosen by God to be His people. And there was only one occurrence in history where God nullifies that relationship forever. Along with all the physical horrors was the spiritual horror. To be God's people and then to have that taken away and given to others was far worse than physical tribulation.

Jesus is commenting here on the uniqueness of an unrepeatable event.

 

[clefty]

Ok.


Nope.

I was hoping that you could actually give some insight into the "count" or the "calculation". I hoped for far too much.

For me its 2 overpower the 3rd...a sign of might...power...democracy...mob rule...state rule...the number of man...

2/3 is .666

The 2 divided by the 3rd is 2 united resenting the 3rd and over powering it...

Kinda like TOL...LOL...strength in numbers and right by might or popularity...

Meanwhile...the path is narrow for a reason...

 

[tetelestai]

Tribulation is oppression, anguish, distress and affliction, not just physical war.

There was only one nation ever chosen by God to be His people. And there was only one occurrence in history where God nullifies that relationship forever. Along with all the physical horrors was the spiritual horror. To be God's people and then to have that taken away and given to others was far worse than physical tribulation.

Jesus is commenting here on the uniqueness of an unrepeatable event.

Correct.

In Revelation, John is told to eat the scroll:

(Rev 10:9) So I went to the angel and asked him to give me the little scroll. He said to me, “Take it and eat it. It will turn your stomach sour, but ‘in your mouth it will be as sweet as honey.

Ezekiel was also told to eat the scroll:

(Ezk 3:3) Then he said to me, "Son of man, eat this scroll I am giving you and fill your stomach with it." So I ate it, and it tasted as sweet as honey in my mouth.

Ezekiel prophesied of the destruction of the first temple, then was told to eat the scroll.

John prophesied the destruction of the second temple, then was told to eat the scroll.