Preterists, Partial Preterists and Pre-tribulationists all conflate tribulation with God's wrath

[claninja]

Benson on Matthew 24:15
When ye shall see, &c. — The preceding verses foretold the signs of the destruction of Jerusalem, that is, the circumstances which were to be the forerunners and attendants of that great event: we now proceed to those verses which respect what happened during the siege, and after it. Never was a prophecy more punctually fulfilled: and it will tend to confirm our faith in the gospel to trace the particulars. The abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel — Daniel’s expression is, The abomination that maketh desolate. By which term is intended the desolating Roman armies with their standards. To every legion was a golden eagle with expanded wings, grasping a thunderbolt. These eagles, with the standards of the cohorts, ten in each legion, were objects of worship among the Romans, and therefore were an abomination to the Jews. We learn from Josephus, that after the city was taken, the Romans brought their ensigns into the temple, and placed them over against the eastern gate, and there sacrificed to them. See the note on Daniel 9:27. Stand in the holy place — Or, as it is in Mark, standing where it ought not —

 

[claninja]

Matthew Henry on Matthew 24:15
The disciples had asked concerning the times, When these things should be? Christ gave them no answer to that; but they had also asked, What shall be the sign? This question he answers fully. The prophecy first respects events near at hand, the destruction of Jerusalem, the end of the Jewish church and state, the calling of the Gentiles, and the setting up of Christ's kingdom in the world; but it also looks to the general judgment; and toward the close, points more particularly to the latter. What Christ here said to his disciples, tended more to promote caution than to satisfy their curiosity; more to prepare them for the events that should happen, than to give a distinct idea of the events. This is that good understanding of the times which all should covet, thence to infer what Israel ought to do. Our Saviour cautions his disciples to stand on their guard against false teachers. And he foretells wars and great commotions among nations. From the time that the Jews rejected Christ, and he left their house desolate, the sword never departed from them. See what comes of refusing the gospel. Those who will not hear the messengers of peace, shall be made to hear the messengers of war. But where the heart is fixed, trusting in God, it is kept in peace, and is not afraid. It is against the mind of Christ, that his people should have troubled hearts, even in troublous times. When we looked forward to the eternity of misery that is before the obstinate refusers of Christ and his gospel, we may truly say, The greatest earthly judgments are but the beginning of sorrows. It is comforting that some shall endure even to the end. Our Lord foretells the preaching of the gospel in all the world. The end of the world shall not be till the gospel has done its work. Christ foretells the ruin coming upon the people of the Jews; and what he said here, would be of use to his disciples, for their conduct and for their comfort. If God opens a door of escape, we ought to make our escape, otherwise we do not trust God, but tempt him. It becomes Christ's disciples, in times of public trouble, to be much in prayer: that is never out of season, but in a special manner seasonable when we are distressed on every side. Though we must take what God sends, yet we may pray against sufferings; and it is very trying to a good man, to be taken by any work of necessity from the solemn service and worship of God on the sabbath day. But here is one word of comfort, that for the elect's sake these days shall be made shorter than their enemies designed, who would have cut all off, if God, who used these foes to serve his own purpose, had not set bounds to their wrath. Christ foretells the rapid spreading of the gospel in the world. It is plainly seen as the lightning. Christ preached his gospel openly. The Romans were like an eagle, and the ensign of their armies was an eagle

 

[DavidPT]

I agree, except that

1. I'm not sure about whether the 1st bowl of wrath only begins to be poured out after the resurrection, for a number of reasons that are not pertinent to this thread, so I'll leave that for another discussion some time.You could be right, though, I'm just saying I'm not sure for a number of reasons.

As to the vials of wrath, I tend to think Christ bodily returns during or following the 7th vial. And since there can't be a resurrection of the dead(1 Thessalonians 4:13-17) until He bodily returns first, the first vial would be meaning before 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 is fulfilled.

Matthew 24:29 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.

Luke 21:25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

What is recorded in Luke 21:25-26 appears to be involving what Matthew 24:29 is involving immediately after the tribulation of those days. And that this is where I see the vials of wrath fitting, and that this is prior to the bodily coming recorded in verse 30 in Matthew 24 and verse 27 in Luke 21. And since Daniel 12 records that one is blessed that comes to the 1335th day, and that Revelation 13 records that the reign of the beast involves 1260 days(42 months) that adds up to another 75 days after the beast's reign has ended. IOW, these extra 75 days, whether literal days or not, that I don't know, might explain the vials of wrath.

Note what both accounts have in common at the end of these things.

Daniel 12:12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.

Revelation 16:15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.


In both accounts those that wait it out they are blessed at the end of it.

Then at the end of Daniel 12 is this.

Daniel 12:13 But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.


Obviously, the end of days is meaning the end of this age. Obviously as well, once Revelation 16:15 is fulfilled that is when Daniel stands in his lot at the end of the days. And the fact Daniel does not mention any more days following day 1335, therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to assume day 1335 is meaning the end of days. What else could it mean if not that, the fact the very next verse is involving the end of this age? Why would verse 12 be involving a context that verse 13 is not even involving? What would be the point if verse 13 is not even connected to verse 12?

Why even bother trying to understand the Bible at all if this is the confusing manner it is recording prophetic events, where one context has zero to do with another context that follows it? Especially the final cpl of verses at the end of a chapter, such as verses 11-13 in Daniel 12? To apply verse 12 to a time period verse 13 is not involving, this is not reasonable. Which means verse 11 has to also be applied to this same time period that leads to the end of days in this age since you can't even arrive at 1335 days without it first involving 1290 days in order to get to the 1335th day.

All of this that I submitted in this post, food for thought if nothing else.

 

[claninja]

Barnes on Matthew 24:15
“The abomination of desolation - This is a Hebrew expression, meaning an abominable or hateful destroyer. The Gentiles were all held in abomination by the Jews, Acts 10:28. The abomination of desolation means the Roman army, and is so explained by Luke 21:20. The Roman army is further called the "abomination" on account of the images of the emperor, and the eagles, carried in front of the legions, and regarded by the Romans with divine honors.”

 

[claninja]

Matthew Poole on Matthew 24:15
As to the second question, amidst the great variety of notions about it, I take theirs to be the best who understand the abomination of desolation to be meant of the Roman armies, which being made up of idolatrous soldiers, and having with them many abominable images are therefore called the abomination; those words, of desolation are added, because they were to make Jerusalem desolate; and so St. Luke, who hath not these words, possibly gives us in other words the best interpretation of them, Luke 21:20: And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. When,

 

[claninja]

John gill on Mathew 24:15
When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation,.... From signs, Christ proceeds to the immediate cause of the destruction of Jerusalem; which was, "the abomination of desolation", or the desolating abomination; or that abominable thing, which threatened and brought desolation upon the city, temple, and nation: by which is meant, not any statue placed in the temple by the Romans, or their order; not the golden eagle which Herod set upon the temple gate, for that was before Christ said these words; nor the image of Tiberius Caesar, which Pilate is said to bring into the temple; for this, if true, must be about this time; whereas Christ cannot be thought to refer to anything so near at hand; much less the statue of Adrian, set in the most holy place, which was an hundred and thirty years and upwards, after the destruction of the city and temple; nor the statue of Titus, who destroyed both, which does not appear: ever to be set up, or attempted; nor of Caligula, which, though ordered, was prevented being placed there: but the Roman army is designed; see Luke 21:20 which was the , "the wing", or "army of abominations making desolate", Daniel 9:27. Armies are called wings, Isaiah 8:8 and the Roman armies were desolating ones to the Jews, and to whom they were an abomination; not only because they consisted of Heathen men, and uncircumcised persons, but chiefly because of the images of their gods, which were upon their ensigns: for images and idols were always an abomination to them; so the "filthiness" which Hezekiah ordered to be carried out of the holy place,

 

[claninja]

Expositors Greek testament on Matthew 24:15

the erection of a heathen altar, the atrocities perpetrated in the temple by the Zealots, etc. Luke gives the clue (Matthew 24:20). The horror is the Roman army, and the thing to be dreaded and fled from is not any religious outrage it may perpetrate, but the desolation it will inevitably bring. That is the emphatic word in the prophetic phrase.—ἐρημώσεως is genitive of apposition = the horror which consists in desolation of the land. The appearance of the Romans in Palestine would at once become known to all. And it would be the signal for flight, for it would mean the end near, inevitable and terrible.—ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίῳ, one naturally thinks of the temple or the holy city and its environs, but a “holy place” in the prophetic style might mean the holy land.

 

[Zao is life]

On one hand you claim preterism believes the persecution of the disciples in Matthew 24:9 refers to wrath of God

You forget that everyone who has read any part of this thread and what I have said can see your deliberate misrepresentation.

 

[claninja]

Cambridge bible for schools and college
the abomination of desolation] i. e. “the abomination that maketh desolate,” “the act of sacrilege, which is a sign and a cause of desolation.” What special act of sacrilege is referred to cannot be determined for certain. The expression may refer (1) to the besieging army; cp. the parallel passage in Luke, “When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies.” Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr., translates Daniel 9:27 in this sense: “Until the wing (or army) of abominations shall make desolate.” (2) The Roman eagles; the E.V. margin, Daniel 9:27, reads: “Upon the battlements shall be the idols of the desolator.” (3)

 

[claninja]

Bengels gnomen on Matthew 24:15
Τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως, the abomination of desolation) The abomination of profanation was followed by the abomination of desolation. Such was the name given by the Jews to the Roman army, composed of all nations, the standards of which they held in abomination as idols, since the Romans attributed divinity to them.

 

[claninja]

You forget that everyone who has read any part of this thread and what I have said can see your deliberate misrepresentation.

Pot, meet kettle

Wait so you don’t believe preterism conflates the persecution of the saints in matthew 24:9-10 with the destruction of the Jerusalem? Your all over place FOTG it’s hard to follow you contradicting arguments.

 

[Zao is life]

Cambridge bible for schools and college
the abomination of desolation] i. e. “the abomination that maketh desolate,” “the act of sacrilege, which is a sign and a cause of desolation.” What special act of sacrilege is referred to cannot be determined for certain. The expression may refer (1) to the besieging army; cp. the parallel passage in Luke, “When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies.” Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr., translates Daniel 9:27 in this sense: “Until the wing (or army) of abominations shall make desolate.” (2) The Roman eagles; the E.V. margin, Daniel 9:27, reads: “Upon the battlements shall be the idols of the desolator.” (3)

You and your scholars. They can stand on their heads and whistle Auld Laing Zyne through their noses if they like (and you can join them because you already have), but you and they still won't be able to make the temple that was destroyed in 70 A.D the holy place - and you will never understand why it's added in brackets (let the reader understand). Because you don't understand. And you refuse to understand.

The veil in the building in Jerusalem was torn in two the moment Jesus died on the cross. It ceased being the holy place. This is why you have remained dumb (silent, like you're unable to speak) about the facts below:

2 Thessalonians 2:4 (the man of sin seating himself up in the sanctuary of God) uses the Greek word naós, which is the only New Testament word used whenever God's sanctuary is being spoken about (the actual sanctuary of God).

The word used for the entire Jerusalem temple complex is hierón, but the word naós is only used in reference to the actual sanctuary in the temple complex:

[*StrongsGreek*] 02411
ἱερόν hierón, hee-er-on' neuter of 2413;
a sacred place, i.e. the entire precincts (whereas 3485 denotes the central sanctuary itself) of the Temple (at Jerusalem or elsewhere):--temple.

[*StrongsGreek*] 03485
NAO/S ναός naós nah-os' from a primary ναίω naíō, (to dwell);
a fane, shrine, temple :--shrine, temple. Compare 2411.

Note: Jesus was not a priest in terms of Moses' law and was not allowed into the naós (the holy places, where only the priests were allowed). So it makes sense that without exception, whenever you read of Jesus entering the temple in Jerusalem, the Greek word employed for "temple", is hierón.

Temple complex (word used: hierón): Before the tearing of the veil:

Matthew 4:5; Matthew 12:5-6; Matthew 21:12; Matthew 21:14-15; Matthew 21:23; Matthew 24:1; Matthew 26:55; Mark 11:11 & 15-16; Mark 11:27; Mark 12:35; Mark 13:1 & 3; Mark 14:49; Luke 2:27, 37 & 46; Luke 4:9; Luke 18:10; Luke 19:45 & 47; Luke 20:1 & 5; Luke 21:37-38; Luke 22:52-53; John 2:14-15; John 5:14; John 7:14 & 28; John 8:2, 20 & 59; John 10:23; John 11:56; John 18:20.

After the tearing of the veil:

Luke 24:53; Acts 2:46; Acts 3:1-3, 8 & 10; Acts 4:1; Acts 5:20-21 & 24-25; Acts 5:42; Acts 21:26-30; Acts 22:17; Acts 24:6, 12 & 18; Acts 25:8; Acts 26:21; 1 Corinthians 9:13.

The actual sanctuary of God (word used: naós): In the temple complex (until the tearing of the veil):

Luke 1:9 & 21-22; Matthew 23:16-17 & 21; Matthew 23:35; Matthew 27:5.

-- Body of Christ --
(John 2:19 & 21; Matthew 26:61; Matthew 27:40; Mark 14:58; Mark 15:29)

-- The veil torn (word used: naós) --

Matthew 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45.

After the verses talking about the tearing of the veil in the temple, the first time the word naos is used again, is in Acts:

Acts 7:48a
But, the Most High does not dwell in temples (Greek: naos) made with hands.

Acts 17:24
The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of Heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples (Greek naos) made with hands.

-- the church & the temple in heaven (word used: naós) --

1 Corinthians 3:16-17 & 1 Corinthians 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:21; 2 Thessalonians 2:4; Revelation 3:12; Revelation 7:15; Revelation 11:1-2; Revelation 11:19; Revelation 14:15 & Revelation 14:17; Revelation 15:5-6 & Revelation 15:8; Revelation 16:1 & Revelation 16:17; Revelation 21:22.

Note: The word hierón is never used in reference to the naós (the actual sanctuary in the temple complex), nor of the body of Christ, nor of the church, nor of the temple in heaven.

After His resurrection Jesus entered into the real and only naós in heaven, of which the earthly temple was the pattern.

This is why the word ceased being used in reference to the Jerusalem temple after the verses talking about the tearing of the veil in the naós, and from then on naós is only used in reference to the church and the temple in heaven, and in reference to the bodies of individual Christians being (members of the) temple of God.

Jesus is the only temple of God, and those who are in Him are the living stones making up the church.

Not once does the New Testament call the church or Temple in heaven the hieron. Every reference uses the word naos, but the word hierón continues to be used in reference to the temple complex in Jerusalem even after the tearing of the veil (multiple times in Acts).

Revelation 11:1 is no exception, because there are no verses in the Revelation where Babylon the Great, or the city spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, or the cities of the nations which fell when the 7th bowl of wrath was poured out, are called "the holy city",

but the Revelation calls New Jerusalem "the holy city" three times: Revelation 21:2; Revelation 21:10; and Revelation 22:19.

Revelation 11:2 is talking about the holy city. The temple that Revelation 11:1 is referring to is the naós - it uses the word naós for "temple". The other city referred to in Revelation chapter 11, is referred to as a city that is "spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified." (Revelation 11:8).

Matthew 24:15 is talking about the holy place.

Preterists, Partial Preterists, Dispensationalists, and Pre-tribulationists all conflate the New Testament temple (the church) with the Old Testament temple (a physical temple in Jerusalem) (see post #3).

 

[DavidPT]

@claninja, all these Commentaries you have submitted, I don't see any of them factoring in Daniel 12, though. Daniel 12:2 proves that Matthew 24:15-21 can't be involving the first century since a resurrection of the dead never followed the destruction of Jerusalem.

If I'm not mistaken, so correct me if I'm wrong, in the past you have proposed that there is a gap between what Daniel 12:1 is involving and what Daniel 12:2 is involving. Apparently, making this at least a 2000 year gap. If so, I don't see that being a possibility since verse 1 makes it clear that it is during this same era of time involving this unequaled time of trouble that a resurrection follows that.

So, yes then, in my mind, Daniel 12 is relevant in regards to Matthew 24:15-21, but would not be relevant in regards to Luke 21:20-23 since those verses are not meaning this---there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time(Daniel 12:1)---For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be(Matthew 24:21)

Keeping in mind that a resurrection of the dead follows this unequaled time of trouble. Sure, there could be a gap after this time of trouble to that of this resurrection, but it wouldn't be a 2000 year gap since Daniel 12:1 records---and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. Where this book is likely meaning the book of life, and if so, the book of life is obviously connected with a resurrection of the dead. And besides, that verse says at that time, which can't mean 2000 years later but has to be involving the same era of time the time of trouble is involving.

 

[Zao is life]

Pot, meet kettle

Wait so you don’t believe preterism conflates the persecution of the saints in matthew 24:9-10 with the destruction of the Jerusalem? Your all over place FOTG it’s hard to follow you contradicting arguments.

There's no misrepresentation on my part because all I've said is that Prets and Part Prets and Pre-tribs all have the great tribulation (Matthew 24:21-22) conflated with God's wrath - you with the wrath that came upon Jerusalem in 70 A.D, and pre-tribs with the wrath of God still to come upon the world. And I've given my solid, scriptural reasons for saying so, and I've said that the only reason you can continue to conflate the two, is because you have divorced the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus in Matthew 24:9-10 from the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus in Matthew 24:21-22 and Matthew 24:29.

Over and over and over.

Unlike you, who can only retort with a deliberate and obvious misrepresentation of what I said. You don't seem to realize that the childishness you are resorting to now only shows yourself up even more.

 

[Zao is life]

As to the vials of wrath, I tend to think Christ bodily returns during or following the 7th vial. And since there can't be a resurrection of the dead(1 Thessalonians 4:13-17) until He bodily returns first, the first vial would be meaning before 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 is fulfilled.

Matthew 24:29 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.

Luke 21:25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

What is recorded in Luke 21:25-26 appears to be involving what Matthew 24:29 is involving immediately after the tribulation of those days. And that this is where I see the vials of wrath fitting, and that this is prior to the bodily coming recorded in verse 30 in Matthew 24 and verse 27 in Luke 21. And since Daniel 12 records that one is blessed that comes to the 1335th day, and that Revelation 13 records that the reign of the beast involves 1260 days(42 months) that adds up to another 75 days after the beast's reign has ended. IOW, these extra 75 days, whether literal days or not, that I don't know, might explain the vials of wrath.

Note what both accounts have in common at the end of these things.

Daniel 12:12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.

Revelation 16:15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.


In both accounts those that wait it out they are blessed at the end of it.

Then at the end of Daniel 12 is this.

Daniel 12:13 But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.


Obviously, the end of days is meaning the end of this age. Obviously as well, once Revelation 16:15 is fulfilled that is when Daniel stands in his lot at the end of the days. And the fact Daniel does not mention any more days following day 1335, therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to assume day 1335 is meaning the end of days. What else could it mean if not that, the fact the very next verse is involving the end of this age? Why would verse 12 be involving a context that verse 13 is not even involving? What would be the point if verse 13 is not even connected to verse 12?

Why even bother trying to understand the Bible at all if this is the confusing manner it is recording prophetic events, where one context has zero to do with another context that follows it? Especially the final cpl of verses at the end of a chapter, such as verses 11-13 in Daniel 12? To apply verse 12 to a time period verse 13 is not involving, this is not reasonable. Which means verse 11 has to also be applied to this same time period that leads to the end of days in this age since you can't even arrive at 1335 days without it first involving 1290 days in order to get to the 1335th day.

All of this that I submitted in this post, food for thought if nothing else.

I'm trying so hard to get to this post but the temptation of responding to false accusations when they get hurled at a person is one of those human things that I should be passed by now (but am not). I will get to it though. I agree with just about everything you say above, anyway.

 

[Zao is life]

@claninja, all these Commentaries you have submitted, I don't see any of them factoring in Daniel 12, though. Daniel 12:2 proves that Matthew 24:15-21 can't be involving the first century since a resurrection of the dead never followed the destruction of Jerusalem.

They don't factor in the consistent distinction that the New Testament makes between tribulation on one hand and wrath on the other hand either, nor do they factor in the fact that the Greek uses the word naos in reference to the holy place and stopped using naos in reference to the Jerusalem temple when Jesus died on the cross.

 

[claninja]

There's no misrepresentation on my part because all I've said is that Prets and Part Prets and Pre-tribs all have the great tribulation (Matthew 24:21-22) conflated with God's wrath - you with the wrath that came upon Jerusalem in 70 A.D, and pre-tribs with the wrath of God still to come upon the world. And I've given my solid, scriptural reasons for saying so.

Oh good, you’ve finally changed your argument to something that’s not a strawman. Before you falsely said prets conflate Matthew 24:9 with Luke 21:23, but now you’ve changed the argument correctly to prets conflating Matthew 24:21 with Luke 21:23. Thanks

 

[claninja]

@claninja, all these Commentaries you have submitted, I don't see any of them factoring in Daniel 12, though. Daniel 12:2 proves that Matthew 24:15-21 can't be involving the first century since a resurrection of the dead never followed the destruction of Jerusalem.

If I'm not mistaken, so correct me if I'm wrong, in the past you have proposed that there is a gap between what Daniel 12:1 is involving and what Daniel 12:2 is involving. Apparently, making this at least a 2000 year gap. If so, I don't see that being a possibility since verse 1 makes it clear that it is during this same era of time involving this unequaled time of trouble that a resurrection follows that.

So, yes then, in my mind, Daniel 12 is relevant in regards to Matthew 24:15-21, but would not be relevant in regards to Luke 21:20-23 since those verses are not meaning this---there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time(Daniel 12:1)---For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be(Matthew 24:21)

Keeping in mind that a resurrection of the dead follows this unequaled time of trouble. Sure, there could be a gap after this time of trouble to that of this resurrection, but it wouldn't be a 2000 year gap since Daniel 12:1 records---and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. Where this book is likely meaning the book of life, and if so, the book of life is obviously connected with a resurrection of the dead. And besides, that verse says at that time, which can't mean 2000 years later but has to be involving the same era of time the time of trouble is involving.

They do though. Ellicot, Barnes, John Gill, and Greek NT all mention Daniel 12. Also these are commentaries specifically on vs 15.

Matthew 24:15 Commentaries: "Therefore when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),

Have a look at all the Daniel 12 mentions on vs 21 commentaries

Matthew 24:21 Commentaries: "For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will.

 

[claninja]

@claninja, all these Commentaries you have submitted, I don't see any of them factoring in Daniel 12, though. Daniel 12:2 proves that Matthew 24:15-21 can't be involving the first century since a resurrection of the dead never followed the destruction of Jerusalem.

If I'm not mistaken, so correct me if I'm wrong, in the past you have proposed that there is a gap between what Daniel 12:1 is involving and what Daniel 12:2 is involving. Apparently, making this at least a 2000 year gap. If so, I don't see that being a possibility since verse 1 makes it clear that it is during this same era of time involving this unequaled time of trouble that a resurrection follows that.

So, yes then, in my mind, Daniel 12 is relevant in regards to Matthew 24:15-21, but would not be relevant in regards to Luke 21:20-23 since those verses are not meaning this---there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time(Daniel 12:1)---For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be(Matthew 24:21)

Keeping in mind that a resurrection of the dead follows this unequaled time of trouble. Sure, there could be a gap after this time of trouble to that of this resurrection, but it wouldn't be a 2000 year gap since Daniel 12:1 records---and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. Where this book is likely meaning the book of life, and if so, the book of life is obviously connected with a resurrection of the dead. And besides, that verse says at that time, which can't mean 2000 years later but has to be involving the same era of time the time of trouble is involving.

I challenge you to find and post any commentaries that conflate the persecution of the saints in Matthew 24:9-10 with the great tribulation. I can’t seem to find any…..

 

[claninja]

You and your scholars. They can stand on their heads and whistle Auld Laing Zyne through their noses if they like (and you can join them because you already have), but you and they still won't be able to make the temple that was destroyed in 70 A.D the holy place - and you will never understand why it's added in brackets (let the reader understand). Because you don't understand. And you refuse to understand.

good I’m glad you agree there is no serious scholarship that agrees with your own personal unique interpretation.