Is the 6th seal about the destruction of Jerusalem?

[claninja]

Exactly You state that the Book of Revelation supports your view in regards to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD . As such it is relevant to show that it does not support that view , you want to use it to support your view but at the same time you don't want anyone to use it to show that it does not support the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem.

If you can prove 100% without a shadow of a doubt that revelation was written after 70AD, then you have a solid argument.

The purpose of the thread is to match the language of luke 23 about the mountains falling on people to the language in revelation 6 about the mountains falling on people.

Your purpose, if you don't believe these are about 70ad, is to show why they are not. I suggest using less highly debatable evidence to prove your point. For example, you saying revelation is post 70 ad, doesn't really make a difference to me or prove anything, as this is in itself is a highly debatable topic.

 

[claninja]

Good point. Clearly some of those things brought up in those passages are yet to be fulfilled, just like you indicated. But of course though, when one is debating a Preterist, via their perspective, expect pretty much everything to have already been historically fulfilled. Clearly some of it would be, but all of it though?

The preterist belief typically involves that the apocalyptic language is not literal, but metaphorical, considering this type of language was also commonly used by surrounding middle eastern tribes.

2 Samuel 22 is great example of this. A lot of apocalyptic language used for how God defeated David's enemies.

The language in Isaiah 13 is apocalyptic in nature with regards to the judgement of Babylon by the medes. And yes, Babylon was defeated by the Persians/medes. It is well documented.

 

[parousia70]

The language in Isaiah 13 is apocalyptic in nature with regards to the judgement of Babylon the medes. And yes, Babylon was defeated by the Persians/medes. It is well documented.

I have witnessed a lot of shuckin' and a divin' here on CF in the past 16 years, but I gotta say, the claim that Isaiah 13's Oracle against Babylon isn't an oracle against the OT Babylonian Empire and its impending overthrow by medeo-persia is right up there.

I do see why those who hold the poster's position NEED it not to be, however.

 

[parousia70]

Good point. Clearly some of those things brought up in those passages are yet to be fulfilled, just like you indicated. But of course though, when one is debating a Preterist, via their perspective, expect pretty much everything to have already been historically fulfilled. Clearly some of it would be, but all of it though?

Futurism is an eschatology of defeatism concerning the role of the Church and its citizens in our communities and nations today.

Preterism is an eschatology of victory concerning the role of the Church and its citizens in our communities and nations today.

The constant fearful statements and despair that futurists express about the world and their daily lives show us that their doctrine that fuels such a "defeat mentality" is not based on FAITH, HOPE, and LOVE.

Compare Joshua to the other spies who were afraid and gave a bad report about the land. That story is like preterists and futurists today. Futurists are the spies who always fearfully say "there are giants in the land!" Preterists are the JOSHUAS who say "THE LAND IS OURS! LET'S TAKE IT. God has given the land to US!"

 

[claninja]

Futurism is an eschatology of defeatism concerning the role of the Church and its citizens in our communities and nations today.

Preterism is an eschatology of victory concerning the role of the Church and its citizens in our communities and nations today.

The constant fearful statements and despair that futurists express about the world and their daily lives show us that their doctrine that fuels such a "defeat mentality" is not based on FAITH, HOPE, and LOVE.

Compare Joshua to the other spies who were afraid and gave a bad report about the land. That story is like preterists and futurists today. Futurists are the spies who always fearfully say "there are giants in the land!" Preterists are the JOSHUAS who say "THE LAND IS OURS! LET'S TAKE IT. God has given the land to US!"

Amen brother. As Jesus our king sits on the highest throne, with a name above all names, he rules the heavens and earth, as he has all authority over the heavens and earth. And we are his, whether working in the kingdom on earth as a kingdom of priests in this body or living in the presence of Father in heaven with a spiritual body. Because of Christ we have eternal life. What more shall we fear? do conspiracy theories and one world governments worry us? No of course not, for we fear no man or thing that can hurt this earthly vessel and so we press on with sharing the gospel, until the good Lord brings us home.

As Christ is the inheritor of all things, and so we, his body, his bride, inherit with him. All praise, glory, and honor to the king of kings who gives us everything for his glory, even though we deserve none of it.

 

[claninja]

I have witnessed a lot of shuckin' and a divin' here on CF in the past 16 years, but I gotta say, the claim that Isaiah 13's Oracle against Babylon isn't an oracle against the OT Babylonian Empire and its impending overthrow by medeo-persia is right up there.

I do see why those who hold the poster's position NEED it not to be, however.

I agree,

How about the oracle against moab in Isaiah 15, is that not really against moab?
How about the oracle against Damascus in Isaiah 17, is that not really against Damascus?
How about the oracle against Cush in Isaiah 18, is that not really against Cush?
How about the oracle against Egypt in Isaiah 19, is that not really against Egypt?

Maybe the fulfillment of the judgement against Egypt and Cush in Isaiah 20 wasn't really against Egypt and cush?

Isaiah 20:3-6
Then the Lord said, “Just as my servant Isaiah has gone stripped and barefoot for three years, as a sign and portent against Egypt and Cush,a 4so the king of Assyria will lead away stripped and barefoot the Egyptian captives and Cushite exiles, young and old, with buttocks bared—to Egypt’s shame. 5Those who trusted in Cush and boasted in Egypt will be dismayed and put to shame. 6In that day the people who live on this coast will say, ‘See what has happened to those we relied on, those we fled to for help and deliverance from the king of Assyria! How then can we escape?’ ”

 

[DavidPT]

In heaven, the kingdom Jesus was given is the Kingdom of Heaven, a kingdom not of this world.

When Jesus returns, he brings the dominion of the Kingdom of Heaven to this earth as the Kingdom of God, to have dominion over all earthly kingdoms.

Currently, Satan's kingdom, referred to as Babylon the great, has dominion over all earthly kingdoms - which, when the 7th trumpet sounds, the dismantling of that kingdom begins, so that the kingdoms of the world become the kingdoms of God and His Christ. Completed when Jesuss descends down to earth and Satan is bound in chains and cast into the bottomless pit.

There is not going to be anymore Babylon the great ruling over the earth any more, after that, ever.

My point has been, Jesus has already received a kingdom. He obviously hasn't returned with it yet.

Luke 19:12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.

I take this parable to be meaning about Jesus. Most do, so usually there are no disputes about that. The text indicates.----went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom. I take that to mean Daniel 7:13-14. And to return, I take that to mean the 2nd coming.

Luke 19:15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.


This would be the 2nd coming. And notice---having received the kingdom---as in having already received before He even returns. How can 7:13-14 not be when He initially received this kingdom? Does not Daniel 7:14 say this----And there was given him----a kingdom?

Based on my understanding, and based on what you submitted, and that I don't disagree with what you submitted, does that make us on the same page for the most part then, or do you interpret Daniel 7:13-14 vastly differently than I do? In that context I simply see it as parenthetical, the fact the immediate context has to do with the end of this age.

 

[Douggg]

or do you interpret Daniel 7:13-14 vastly differently than I do?

I don't understand how you interpret those verses. "Parenthetical" escapes me as to what you mean. Perhaps if you repackaged how you understand it in a different way.

 

[seventysevens]

If you can prove 100% without a shadow of a doubt that revelation was written after 70AD, then you have a solid argument.

The purpose of the thread is to match the language of luke 23 about the mountains falling on people to the language in revelation 6 about the mountains falling on people.

Your purpose, if you don't believe these are about 70ad, is to show why they are not. I suggest using less highly debatable evidence to prove your point. For example, you saying revelation is post 70 ad, doesn't really make a difference to me or prove anything, as this is in itself is a highly debatable topic.

In order for you to have a solid case it is you that needs to prove your view , not to me but to yourself , you have made an assumption based on a similar event , if someone bombs Murrah Federal Building ,it is not wise to say that Timothy McVeigh did just because he did it before - it needs ti be proved -
You entire case of Jerusalem being destroyed in 70 AD being the same time as Revelation Jerusalem being destroyed is dependent on the date Revelation is written , If it is shown Revelation was written after 70 AD that proves that the theory you are banking on is false , I do not follow the preterist view - but IF I did , I would leave no stone un-turned I would search in every possible way to find the truth -
Simple example we do know John was exiled on Patmos -we do know that Domitian was in reigning Power when John was there and was released in 96 when Domitian died
I have not heard nor seen any report that John was exiled on Patmos for more than 24 months - 96 AD minus 2 years = 94 AD - that is a Lot of years in between 94 AD and 70 AD
If you cannot find facts based on a search of when the book was written you seek out other ways to determine when John was exiled to Patmos
Your unwillingness to search until you find the preponderance of the evidence , and you eager willingness to focus on unproved assumptions speaks volumes more than can be said in a post

There are other things in Revelation and in Matt24 that is enough to show that the destruction of the temple in 70 AD is nowhere close to the temple in Revelation that I do not need to concern myself with it , but you are entitled to your view , but you will mostly encounter Christians that disagree with the preterist view and not even interested in learning anything about it since it is based on assumptions that cannot be proved valid ,


Myself I don't have a problem with preterism as I don't waste time on it , If you want people to agree then you need to provide more than suppositions and assumptions . As everyone knows that history repeats itself because there is evidence of it , even scripture declares it

 

[DavidPT]

I don't understand how you interpret those verses. "Parenthetical" escapes me as to what you mean. Perhaps if you repackaged how you understand it in a different way.

If the context leading up to Daniel 7:13-14 is the end of the age, which is what I take it to be, and if the context in Daniel 7:13-14 is the ascension back into heaven 2000 years ago, something has to be parenthetical then. For years I interpreted Daniel 7:13-14 as having to do with the end of this age because that's how I interpreted the verses preceding it. Then it dawned on me eventually, could Daniel 7:13-14 simply be parenthetical in that context? Something has to explain when and where Jesus initially receives the kingdom He will return with.

Assuming I might be correct here, there would be three comings in-bedded in Daniel 7:13-14. If on the surface, the coming meant is meaning this ascension, well can't have that coming unless a coming had already preceded it. And since some of Daniel 7:14 would have to involve a time when Jesus would have to be physically present, since some of the prophecy involves eternity---such as---his dominion is an everlasting dominion----that couldn't be fulfilled unless there is also a third coming, in this case, the 2nd coming to earth.

The 3 comings would then be-----the first coming when He was initially born. The coming back to heaven after His death and resurrection(Daniel 7:13-14). His return back to earth, His 2nd coming to the earth.

 

[seventysevens]

The purpose of the thread is to match the language of luke 23 about the mountains falling on people to the language in revelation 6 about the mountains falling on people.

In what manner , consider someone attacks you while you are pumping gas into your car , and they steal your car and you scream out 'You'll pay for this !" you call the police and they track down the car thief and 12 months later he goes to prison for grand theft auto

Jesus says "
Then

‘they will say to the mountains, “Fall on us!”
and to the hills, “Cover us!”’

and

in the future during the GT/Wrath of Jesus - His words come true , Since this event is directly tied to Jesus Physical return to earth to establish His Kingdom on earth where the born again saints reign WITH Jesus , it be a prophecy of what yet will happen immediately prior to Jesus return to earth

When the seals, trumpets and bowls events happen they happen to fulfillment in a short period of time , hence if the 6th seal has already happened in past history then all seals and trumpets and bowls would also have happened ,

since we have zero evidence of any being fulfilled and we know for a fact that when they are completed , Jesus will be on earth and there will be evidence of all the devastation of Armageddon and all the prophecies pertaining to them will have happened
and there is zero evidence that any of that has happened- because it has not yet happened

 

[DavidPT]

Futurism is an eschatology of defeatism concerning the role of the Church and its citizens in our communities and nations today.

Preterism is an eschatology of victory concerning the role of the Church and its citizens in our communities and nations today.

The constant fearful statements and despair that futurists express about the world and their daily lives show us that their doctrine that fuels such a "defeat mentality" is not based on FAITH, HOPE, and LOVE.

Compare Joshua to the other spies who were afraid and gave a bad report about the land. That story is like preterists and futurists today. Futurists are the spies who always fearfully say "there are giants in the land!" Preterists are the JOSHUAS who say "THE LAND IS OURS! LET'S TAKE IT. God has given the land to US!"

Take the following prophecy, for instance.

Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Let's say someone in the first century heareth the words of the prophecy of this book. And let's also say someone in our day and time does as well. Finally, let's say both added unto these things. How then is it logically possible to apply the plagues that are written in this book, to two different people living thousands of years apart? If these plagues involve the vials of wrath, for instance, would that mean 7 vials of wrath gets poured out on that person in the first century, and 2000 years later these same 7 vials of wrath gets poured out on this person in our day and time?

 

[seventysevens]

The 3 comings would then be-----the first coming when He was initially born. The coming back to heaven after His death and resurrection(Daniel 7:13-14). His return back to earth, His 2nd coming to the earth.

first coming
first and a half coming
second coming

resurrection is not considered a coming , the saints being resurrected being included in the second coming are not their own second coming

 

[claninja]

In order for you to have a solid case it is you that needs to prove your view ,

I absolutely agree.

not to me but to yourself , you have made an assumption based on a similar event , if someone bombs Murrah Federal Building ,it is not wise to say that Timothy McVeigh did just because he did it before - it needs ti be proved -

And Just as I have to evidence to back up my belief, you have to have evidence to back up yours.

You entire case of Jerusalem being destroyed in 70 AD being the same time as Revelation Jerusalem being destroyed is dependent on the date Revelation is written , If it is shown Revelation was written after 70 AD that proves that the theory you are banking on is false , I do not follow the preterist view - but IF I did , I would leave no stone un-turned I would search in every possible way to find the truth -

And here lies the problem. Can revelation be proved 100% that it was written post 70ad with external evidence? No. Can it be proven 100% that revelation was written pre 70AD with external evidence? No

There is evidence for both sides of the argument.

And well, with internal evidence? That's really hard to debate as well because futurists will just declare dual fulfillment or, no Jesus didn't really mean this generation in front of him, it was about a future generation.

Simple example we do know John was exiled on Patmos -we do know that Domitian was in reigning Power when John was there and was released in 96 when Domitian died
I have not heard nor seen any report that John was exiled on Patmos for more than 24 months - 96 AD minus 2 years = 94 AD - that is a Lot of years in between 94 AD and 70 AD
If you cannot find facts based on a search of when the book was written you seek out other ways to determine when John was exiled to Patmos

What is your source for this?

the only source I know of and could find is Irenaeus. And it appears that any later church fathers that agree is because of Irenaeus. When dating a book, it is important took at multiple sources. Is Irenaeus a reliable historian? Should we use his quote to 100% proof revelation was written between 81 and 96? Should we take it at 100% proof that Jesus lived till 40-50 years of age, because 1 source: irenaeus, says so?

Irenaeus
-Irenaeus admits that he was a boy when he learned from Polycarp he kept no written record:

"For, while I was yet a boy, I saw thee in Lower Asia with Polycarp ... For I have a more vivid recollection of what occurred at that time than of recent events ... so that I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse ... also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance ... I then listened to attentively, and treasured them up not on paper, but in my heart; and I am continually, by God's grace, revolving these things accurately in my mind" (Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus, II)."

-Iranaeus has some other problems with his memory of learning things, for he also believed Jesus lived to be an old man, as the gospel and the elders testify to.

"but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify. (against heresies Book II chapter 22)"

-According to pliny the elder, Nero was also referred to as Domitius Nero. Nero's actual name was Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus. So it is possible, considering his 'memory', that he misunderstood what he had learned as a boy.

Another source that is often used is clement, but does he even mention Domitian in regards to Johns exile? No he doesn't:

Clement of Alexandria (150-215)
-Clement of Alexandria never actually mentions Domitian by name. He only mentions a 'tyrant'

'And that you may be still more confident, that repenting thus truly there remains for you a sure hope of salvation, listen to a tale, which is not a tale but a narrative, handed down and committed to the custody of memory, about the Apostle John. For when, on the tyrant's death, he returned to Ephesus from the isle of Patmos, he went away, being invited, to the contiguous territories of the nations, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, there to ordain such as were marked out by the Spirit" (Clement of Alexandria - Who is the Rich Man that Shall be Saved, Chapter 42)'

-Clement of Alexandria also believed that the teachings of the apostles ended with Nero:

For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero" (Clement of Alexandria -The Stromata, or Miscellanies, Book 7, Chapter 17).

-Clement of Alexandria also believed Nero's reign occurred during Daniels 70th week

"The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away ..." (Clement of Alexandria -The Stromata, or Miscellanies, Book 1, Chapter 21). Later in this same chapter, Clement wrote, "... and the result is three years and six months, which is "the half of the week," as Daniel the prophet said. For he said that there were two thousand three hundred days from the time that the abomination of Nero stood in the holy city, till its destruction."

-so most likely the tyrant that Clement mentions is Nero

How epiphanus (314-430) Who stated john was exiled by Claudius Caesar?

Or the Syriac version of revelation that states John was exiled by nero?

Your unwillingness to search until you find the preponderance of the evidence , and you eager willingness to focus on unproved assumptions speaks volumes more than can be said in a post

Pot calling the kettle black at little bit there.

Myself I don't have a problem with preterism as I don't waste time on it ,

Seems like you spent some time on this forum, no?

perhaps if you recognized that the majority of Christians view preterism akin to JW teaching that you

they do? or is this just a generic statement used to belittle?

 

[DavidPT]

first coming
first and a half coming
second coming

resurrection is not considered a coming , the saints being resurrected being included in the second coming are not their own second coming

When Jesus died, He had not yet ascended back into heaven. When He rose, He still had not ascended back into heaven. Eventually though, He ascended back into heaven. From heaven's perspective that would be a coming, the same way from our perspective, it would be a coming when He comes to the earth.

 

[claninja]

In what manner , consider someone attacks you while you are pumping gas into your car , and they steal your car and you scream out 'You'll pay for this !" you call the police and they track down the car thief and 12 months later he goes to prison for grand theft auto

In this story you are telling, Is it someone else who gets arrested for the original crime 12 months later, or the person who actually committed the crime?

 

[seventysevens]

When Jesus died, He had not yet ascended back into heaven. When He rose, He still had not ascended back into heaven. Eventually though, He ascended back into heaven. From heaven's perspective that would be a coming, the same way from our perspective, it would be a coming when He comes to the earth.

simply saying that considering that no one ever says- Jesus 3rd coming , or Jesus 3rd return or Jesus 3rd advent
if Jesus resurrection was considered as a return people would not be saying Jesus 2nd coming , or Jesus 2nd return or Jesus 2nd advent

 

[seventysevens]

In this story you are telling, Is it someone else who gets arrested for the original crime 12 months later, or the person who actually committed the crime?

I tried to a make a simply analogy but you don't understand
Jesus is being brutally punished and he speaks a prophecy of what will happen in the future
‘they will say to the mountains, “Fall on us!”
and to the hills, “Cover us!”’

that future of

16 They called to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! 17 For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can withstand it?

Jesus is the Lamb who is fulfilling HIS prophecy of what HE said in Luke 23

 

[parousia70]

Or the Syriac version of revelation that states John was exiled by nero?

We also have the Muratorian Canon which mandates the early date. Paul was, according to the Canon, "following the rule of his predecessor John" by writing to no more than seven Churches. This means John had set this precedent of writing to 7 Churches BEFORE Paul finished his writings.

As F.W. Farrar (1886) states:

"there can be no reasonable doubt respecting the (early) date of the Apocalypse."

"We cannot accept a dubious expression of the Bishop of Lyons as adequate to set aside an overwhelming weight of evidence, alike external and internal, in proof of the fact that the Apocalypse was written, at the latest, soon after the death of Nero."

"The reason why the early date and mainly contemporary explanation of the book is daily winning fresh adherents among unbiased thinkers of every Church and school, is partly because it rests on so simple and secure a basis, and partly because no other can compete with it. It is indeed the only system which is built on the plain and repeated statements and indications of the Seer himself and the corresponding events are so closely accordant with the symbols as to make it certain that this scheme of interpretation is the only one that can survive."

 

[seventysevens]

I absolutely agree.



And Just as I have to evidence to back up my belief, you have to have evidence to back up yours.



And here lies the problem. Can revelation be proved 100% that it was written post 70ad with external evidence? No. Can it be proven 100% that revelation was written pre 70AD with external evidence? No

There is evidence for both sides of the argument.

And well, with internal evidence? That's really hard to debate as well because futurists will just declare dual fulfillment or, no Jesus didn't really mean this generation in front of him, it was about a future generation.


What is your source for this?

the only source I know of and could find is Irenaeus. And it appears that any later church fathers that agree is because of Irenaeus. When dating a book, it is important took at multiple sources. Is Irenaeus a reliable historian? Should we use his quote to 100% proof revelation was written between 81 and 96? Should we take it at 100% proof that Jesus lived till 40-50 years of age, because 1 source: irenaeus, says so?

Irenaeus
-Irenaeus admits that he was a boy when he learned from Polycarp he kept no written record:

"For, while I was yet a boy, I saw thee in Lower Asia with Polycarp ... For I have a more vivid recollection of what occurred at that time than of recent events ... so that I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse ... also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance ... I then listened to attentively, and treasured them up not on paper, but in my heart; and I am continually, by God's grace, revolving these things accurately in my mind" (Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus, II)."

-Iranaeus has some other problems with his memory of learning things, for he also believed Jesus lived to be an old man, as the gospel and the elders testify to.

"but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify. (against heresies Book II chapter 22)"

-According to pliny the elder, Nero was also referred to as Domitius Nero. Nero's actual name was Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus. So it is possible, considering his 'memory', that he misunderstood what he had learned as a boy.

Another source that is often used is clement, but does he even mention Domitian in regards to Johns exile? No he doesn't:

Clement of Alexandria (150-215)
-Clement of Alexandria never actually mentions Domitian by name. He only mentions a 'tyrant'

'And that you may be still more confident, that repenting thus truly there remains for you a sure hope of salvation, listen to a tale, which is not a tale but a narrative, handed down and committed to the custody of memory, about the Apostle John. For when, on the tyrant's death, he returned to Ephesus from the isle of Patmos, he went away, being invited, to the contiguous territories of the nations, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, there to ordain such as were marked out by the Spirit" (Clement of Alexandria - Who is the Rich Man that Shall be Saved, Chapter 42)'

-Clement of Alexandria also believed that the teachings of the apostles ended with Nero:

For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero" (Clement of Alexandria -The Stromata, or Miscellanies, Book 7, Chapter 17).

-Clement of Alexandria also believed Nero's reign occurred during Daniels 70th week

"The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away ..." (Clement of Alexandria -The Stromata, or Miscellanies, Book 1, Chapter 21). Later in this same chapter, Clement wrote, "... and the result is three years and six months, which is "the half of the week," as Daniel the prophet said. For he said that there were two thousand three hundred days from the time that the abomination of Nero stood in the holy city, till its destruction."

-so most likely the tyrant that Clement mentions is Nero

How epiphanus (314-430) Who stated john was exiled by Claudius Caesar?

Or the Syriac version of revelation that states John was exiled by nero?











they do? or is this just a generic statement used to belittle?

You seem to be looking for a fight - I simply shared facts with you to help you find what you are needing - but it shows you really don't want any facts that are not agreeable to your views