[topcat54]

Moreover, Matthew isn't speaking to Jewish Christians, it is speaking to Jews, since the book of Matthew is a book directed to the Jew (note the genealogy back to Abraham), while Luke is a book for Gentiles, going back to Adam.

A dispensational presupposition not supported by anything actually in the Bible.

[fortheDeclaration]

[Moreover, Matthew isn't speaking to Jewish Christians, it is speaking to Jews, since the book of Matthew is a book directed to the Jew (note the genealogy back to Abraham), while Luke is a book for Gentiles, going back to Adam.]

A dispensational presupposition not supported by anything actually in the Bible.

Yes, it is supported by the genealogies that I gave you.

That is why Matthew only goes back to Abraham while Luke goes back to Adam.

Understanding the Bible means understanding differences as well as similitaries (rightly dividing)

[fortheDeclaration]

when

Verses 20,24 are not included in the report of the Olivet discourse as given by Matthew and Mark. Two sieges of Jerusalem are in view in that discourse. Luke 21:20-24 refers to the siege by Titus, A.D. 70, when the city was taken, and verse 24 literally fulfilled. But that siege and its horrors but adumbrate the final siege at the end of this age, in which the “great tribulation” culminates. At that time the city will be taken, but delivered by the glorious appearing of the Lord Revelation 19:11-21. The references in ; Matthew 24:15-28,; Mark 13:14-26 are to the final tribulation siege; Luke 21:20-24 to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. In Luke the sign is the compassing of Jerusalem by armies Luke 21:20 in ; Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14 the sign is the abomination in the holy place. 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/ScofieldReferenceNotes/srn.cgi?book=lu&chapter=021