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

[DavidPT]

Jesus wasn't talking past 70 ad in luke 11 and matthew 23 when he charged apostate israel with all the righteous blood shed, so why should I personally understand the symbolic vision of revelation 18:24 as more or beyond what Jesus already taught?

One valid reason why you probably should is this.

Revelation 18:21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.


Whatever one takes that great city Babylon to be meaning, according to this verse once this is fulfilled, we are told that great city Babylon shall be found no more at all. Which should be taken to mean that it no longer exists, in any sense.

Revelation 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

It is in that great city Babylon where all this blood is found. Which then means once verse 21 has been fulfilled, there will never be anymore martyering of anyone ever again because that great city Babylon no longer exists, in any sense.

If one insists that great city Babylon is meaning Jerusalem in the first century prior to it being destroyed, what about the fact that Jesrusalem is back on the map again? How does that then equal this---and shall be found no more at all? Verse 24 indicates in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth. And that this is meaning up until verse 21 is fulfilled, and not also after verse 21 is fulfilled.

If verse 21 was fulfilled 2000 years ago, I already showed one contradiction that causes if one takes it to mean Jerusalem in the first century prior to it being destroyed. Another contradiction it causes, clearly there has still been blood shed of saints and continues to be to this day, post that of 70 AD. Which then obviously means verse 21 hasn't been fulfilled yet since verse 24 is not meaning after verse 21 is fulfilled, it is meaning before it is fulfilled, meaning in regards to blood being shed by the martyring of saints.

I know what you are likely going to argue, since the beast also causes saints to be martyred, saints can still be being martyred after verse 21 is fulfilled. It all depends on how you look at it. If that great city Babylon symbolizes the beast's kingdom, destroy that kingdom and now the beast no longer has a kingdom to operate through, or destroy that kingdom and it also takes down the beast at the same time. But if we take Babylon the great to be meaning Jerusalem in the first century prior to it being destroyed, and that if we take verse 21 as already fulfilled, there is no getting around it then, it contradicts this--and shall be found no more at all---the fact Jerusalem is still found to this day.

 

[parousia70]

But if we take Babylon the great to be meaning Jerusalem in the first century prior to it being destroyed, and that if we take verse 21 as already fulfilled, there is no getting around it then, it contradicts this--and shall be found no more at all---the fact Jerusalem is still found to this day.

The Operational, Covenental, Hebrew Theocracy that was 1st century Jerusalem was destroyed by fire, on time, as prophesied, and is indeed found no more at all, and never will be again.

This isn't about the dirt.
Nor is it about a 20-21st century, multi ethnic, secular democracy that merely shares the name and similar geography to the pre desolation, Hebrew, covenental, theocratic nation and city that they have no verifiable relation to at all.

 

[claninja]

One valid reason why you probably should is this.

Revelation 18:21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.


Whatever one takes that great city Babylon to be meaning, according to this verse once this is fulfilled, we are told that great city Babylon shall be found no more at all. Which should be taken to mean that it no longer exists, in any sense.

Revelation 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

It is in that great city Babylon where all this blood is found. Which then means once verse 21 has been fulfilled, there will never be anymore martyering of anyone ever again because that great city Babylon no longer exists, in any sense.

If one insists that great city Babylon is meaning Jerusalem in the first century prior to it being destroyed, what about the fact that Jesrusalem is back on the map again? How does that then equal this---and shall be found no more at all? Verse 24 indicates in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth. And that this is meaning up until verse 21 is fulfilled, and not also after verse 21 is fulfilled.

If verse 21 was fulfilled 2000 years ago, I already showed one contradiction that causes if one takes it to mean Jerusalem in the first century prior to it being destroyed. Another contradiction it causes, clearly there has still been blood shed of saints and continues to be to this day, post that of 70 AD. Which then obviously means verse 21 hasn't been fulfilled yet since verse 24 is not meaning after verse 21 is fulfilled, it is meaning before it is fulfilled, meaning in regards to blood being shed by the martyring of saints.

I know what you are likely going to argue, since the beast also causes saints to be martyred, saints can still be being martyred after verse 21 is fulfilled. It all depends on how you look at it. If that great city Babylon symbolizes the beast's kingdom, destroy that kingdom and now the beast no longer has a kingdom to operate through, or destroy that kingdom and it also takes down the beast at the same time. But if we take Babylon the great to be meaning Jerusalem in the first century prior to it being destroyed, and that if we take verse 21 as already fulfilled, there is no getting around it then, it contradicts this--and shall be found no more at all---the fact Jerusalem is still found to this day.

Apostate israel, under the old covenant, no longer exists. They are the “Jerusalem that kills the prophets”.


Why does Jesus only charge apostate Israel with all the righteous blood shed? Why doesn’t Jesus go beyond them in Matthew 23 and Luke 11?

 

[DavidPT]

The Operational, Covenental, Hebrew Theocracy that was 1st century Jerusalem was destroyed by fire, on time, as prophesied, and is indeed found no more at all, and never will be again.

This isn't about the dirt.
Nor is it about a 20-21st century, multi ethnic, secular democracy that merely shares the name and similar geography to the pre desolation, Hebrew, covenental, theocratic nation and city that they have no verifiable relation to at all.

While I do grasp the point you are attempting to make, verse 24 in Revelation 18 also indicates that in her is found all that were slain upon the earth. Which has to mean they are slain before verse 21 is fulfilled. And if verse 21 was allegedly already fulfilled 2000 years ago, and the fact there are still those being slain upon the earth after that, and that it is in her where this shed blood is found, it is then not reasonable that verse 21 has already been fulfilled.


Granted, in some cases earth is not always meaning the entire planet. Sometimes it is only meaning a specific region on the planet. Could that be the case with verse 24? No, the fact we are told the following in that same chapter.

Revelation 18:23 And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.


The text doesn't say some nations, it says all nations. All nations give the impression this is involving global rather than regional.

Revelation 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations , and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;


Here is another mention of all nations, which should give us a clue as to how we should interpret 'all nations' in the book of Revelation including ch 18. Are Preterists going to interpret all nations in this verse one way and all nations in Revelation 18 in an entirely different way? Are Preterists going to argue that all nations per Revelation 7:9 that this is involving regional rather than global in order to agree with how they are interpreting all nations in Revelation 18?

 

[Zao is life]

"A straw man fallacy occurs when someone takes another person’s argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making." -https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/logical-fallacies/logical-fallacies-straw-man/

You've distorted what preterim believes in order to refute it. Preterism does not conflate the persecution of the saints (matthew 24:9-10) with the great tribulation (matthew 24:21) nor the days of wrath (luke 23:21), as you falsely claim in the OP. Your argument is a strawman.

Additionally, you continue avoid providing any serious scholarship or Greek expert opinion on the "grammar showing" that the persecution of the saints in matthew 24:9-10 is the same event as the great tribulation starting in vs 15. This is your own personal unique interpration, which requires a strawman argument to foist it up. Just and FYI, you seem to be ignoring the greek word for "when", found in matthew 24:15.

Your arguments are so circular as to be laughable at times.

You continue to hack the text and what Jesus was saying about the tribulation of the disciples and events surrounding it, by slicing it off at Matthew 24:10, as though the rest of the text doesn't exist, and Jesus' statement about the tribulation of the disciples ends with Matthew 24:10,

then you simply continue completely conflating the tribulation of the disciples mentioned in Matthew 24:9-31, with he wrath that came upon Jerusalem mentioned in Luke 21:23, and the only way you can do this, is to continue hacking the text off at verse 10.

Your assertion for argument's sake regarding Greek scholarship is absolutely absurd, IMO.

Maybe many can't or don't want to see how absurd it is to demand "serious Greek scholarship" when it's Greek scholarship that has defined the words that the best Bible translators understand means "and, therefore, but, for and because" and hence have translated thus,

and to continue to make such a ridiculous demand when it's you who (seriously) needs to provide 'serious Greek scholarship' to prove that the best Greek scholarship is wrong in their definition of the Greek words used, is absurdity that beggars belief, IMO.

But you continue to avoid providing any serious Greek scholarship that could contradict the definitions that the best Greek scholarship has already given (because you cannot), and then attempt to avoid the fact that you cannot, by demanding that someone else provides the Greek scholarship that already exists in the Greek text of the passage from verse 9 to verse 31, as well as in the English translation of the Greek text.

9 Then [tote: at the time of (the end)] they will deliver you up to be afflicted and will kill you. And you will be hated of all nations for My name's sake.
10 And [kai] then [tote] many will be offended, and will betray one another, and will hate one another.
11 And [kai] many false prophets will rise and deceive many.
12 And [kai] because iniquity shall abound, the love of many will become cold.
13 But [de] he who endures to the end, the same shall be kept safe.
14 And [kai] this gospel of the kingdom shall be proclaimed in all the world as a witness to all nations. And [kai] then [tote] the end shall come.
15 Therefore [oun] when you see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoever reads, let him understand).
16 Then [tote] let those in Judea flee into the mountains.
17 Let him on the housetop not come down to take anything out of his house;
18 nor let him in the field turn back to take his clothes.
19 And [kai] woe to those who are with child, and to those who give suck in those days!
20 But [de] pray that your flight is not in the winter, nor on the sabbath day;
21 for [gar] then shall be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world to this time; no, nor ever shall be.
22 And [kai] unless those days should be shortened, no flesh would be saved. But for the elect's sake, those days shall be shortened.

It's serious Greek scholarship that has provided the definitions of the Greek words used in the Greek text and the best Bible translators, having understood the meanings, have translated the text as above, and it continues like this all the way through the passage.

And round and around you go, always avoiding the obvious flaw in your thinking by resorting to such ridiculous arguments as you have been resorting to, and just repeating the same things.

Have fun.

 

[Zao is life]

One valid reason why you probably should is this.

Revelation 18:21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.


Whatever one takes that great city Babylon to be meaning, according to this verse once this is fulfilled, we are told that great city Babylon shall be found no more at all. Which should be taken to mean that it no longer exists, in any sense.

Revelation 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

It is in that great city Babylon where all this blood is found. Which then means once verse 21 has been fulfilled, there will never be anymore martyering of anyone ever again because that great city Babylon no longer exists, in any sense.

If one insists that great city Babylon is meaning Jerusalem in the first century prior to it being destroyed, what about the fact that Jesrusalem is back on the map again? How does that then equal this---and shall be found no more at all? Verse 24 indicates in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth. And that this is meaning up until verse 21 is fulfilled, and not also after verse 21 is fulfilled.

If verse 21 was fulfilled 2000 years ago, I already showed one contradiction that causes if one takes it to mean Jerusalem in the first century prior to it being destroyed. Another contradiction it causes, clearly there has still been blood shed of saints and continues to be to this day, post that of 70 AD. Which then obviously means verse 21 hasn't been fulfilled yet since verse 24 is not meaning after verse 21 is fulfilled, it is meaning before it is fulfilled, meaning in regards to blood being shed by the martyring of saints.

I know what you are likely going to argue, since the beast also causes saints to be martyred, saints can still be being martyred after verse 21 is fulfilled. It all depends on how you look at it. If that great city Babylon symbolizes the beast's kingdom, destroy that kingdom and now the beast no longer has a kingdom to operate through, or destroy that kingdom and it also takes down the beast at the same time. But if we take Babylon the great to be meaning Jerusalem in the first century prior to it being destroyed, and that if we take verse 21 as already fulfilled, there is no getting around it then, it contradicts this--and shall be found no more at all---the fact Jerusalem is still found to this day.

The trouble with the thinking that applies Jesus' indictment of the Jews' religious leaders with the blood of the very prophets whose tombs they adorned, to the Jewish religious leaders only, is that it fails to see that it applies to Israel's religious leaders - the church - today also, if those who are supposed to be God's elect shed the blood of God's elect. Even if the murder is taking place in the heart.

Those who are spiritually blind will never understand this, though Romans 11:20-22; Revelation 3:18 and many other scriptures should make us aware of this. But it betrays spiritual pride and spiritual blindness to confidently point the finger and say, "See, we adorn the tombs of the prophets who were martyred, we would never do what they did. This was only about Jerusalem of the 1st century A.D".

 

[claninja]

then you simply continue completely conflating the tribulation of the disciples mentioned in Matthew 24:9-31, with he wrath that came upon Jerusalem mentioned in Luke 21:23, and the only way you can do this, is to continue hacking the text off at verse 10.

All you have is a Strawman. Preterism doesn’t conflate the persecution of the disciple (matthew 24:9-10) with the wrath upon Jerusalem (luke 21:23). Your statement is a lie, which you continue to double down on.

and to continue to make such a ridiculous demand when it's you who (seriously) needs to provide 'serious Greek scholarship' to prove that the best Greek scholarship is wrong in their definition of the Greek words used, is absurdity that beggars belief, IMO.

I guess I’m not surprised you need to invent another strawman. Who said anything about using Greek scholarship in regards to “definitions of Greek words”? “Grammar” is not the same as a “definition”. I asked if you had any serious scholarship that agreed the “grammar shows” Matthew 29:9-10 = Matthew 24:21?

It’s not difficult to find serious scholarship on Matthew 24:21 being = to the wrath on apostate Israel. But it sure seems impossible to find any serious scholarship that agrees with anything that you claim.

Ellicot for English readers on Matthew 24:21
“The words come from Daniel 12:1. One who reads the narrative of Josephus will hardly hesitate to adopt his language, “that all miseries that had been known from the beginning of the world fell short” of those of the siege of the Holy City (Wars, v. 13, §§ 4, 5). Other sieges may have witnessed, before and since, scenes of physical wretchedness equally appalling, but nothing that history records offers anything parallel to the alternations of fanatic hope and frenzied despair that attended the breaking up of the faith and polity of Israel.”

Barnes notes on the Bible Mathew 24:21
“There shall be great tribulation - The word "tribulation" means calamity or "suffering." Luke Luk 21:24 has specified in what this tribulation would consist: "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 shall be fulfilled." That is, until the time allotted for the Gentiles "to do it" shall be fully accomplished, or as long as God is pleased to suffer them to do it.
The first thing mentioned by Luke is, that they should fall "by the edge of the sword" - that is, would be slain in war, as the sword was then principally used in war. This was most strikingly fulfilled. Josephus, in describing it, uses almost the very words of our Saviour. "All the calamities, says he, which had befallen any nation from the beginning of the world" were but small in comparison with those of the Jews. - Jewish Wars, b. i. preface, section 4.”

John Gill on Matthew 24:21
“be such as was not since the beginning of the world, to this time, no, nor ever shall be. The burning of Sodom and Gomorrha, the bondage of the children of Israel in Egypt, their captivity in Babylon, and all their distresses and afflictions in the times of the Maccabees, are nothing to be compared with the calamities which befell the Jews in the siege and destruction of Jerusalem. Great desolations have been made in the besieging and at the taking of many famous cities, as Troy, Babylon, Carthage, &c. but none of them are to be mentioned with the deplorable case of this city. Whoever reads Josephus's account will be fully convinced of this; and readily join with him, who was an eyewitness of it, when he says (m), that

"never did any city suffer such things, nor was there ever any generation that more abounded in malice or wickedness.''

And indeed, all this came upon them for their impenitence and infidelity, and for their rejection and murdering of the Son of God; for as never any before, or since, committed the sin they did, or ever will, so there never did, or will, the same calamity befall a nation, as did them.”

Cambridge Bible for schools and college on Matthew 24:21
“21. great tribulation] “Jerusalem, a city that had been liable to so many miseries during the siege, that had it enjoyed as much happiness from its first foundation, it would certainly have been the envy of the world.” Josephus, B. J. vii. 6. 5.

No words can describe the unequalled horrors of this siege. It was the Passover season, and Jews from all parts were crowded within the walls.”

John Calvin on Matthew 24:21
“21 For there will then be great tribulation. Luke says also, that there will be days of vengeance, and of wrath on that people, that all things which are written may be fulfilled”

Adam Clarke on Matthew 24:21.
“For then shall be great tribulation - No history can furnish us with a parallel to the calamities and miseries of the Jews: - rapine, murder, famine, and pestilence within: fire and sword, and all the horrors of war, without. Our Lord wept at the foresight of these calamities; and it is almost impossible for any humane person to read the relation of them in Josephus without weeping also. St. Luke, Luke 21:22, calls these the days of vengeance, that all things which were written might be fulfilled.”

 

[Zao is life]

All you have is a Strawman. Preterism doesn’t conflate the persecution of the disciple (matthew 24:9-10) with the wrath upon Jerusalem (luke 21:23). Your statement is a lie, which you continue to double down on.



I guess I’m not surprised you need to invent another strawman. Who said anything about using Greek scholarship in regards to “definitions of Greek words”? “Grammar” is not the same as a “definition”. I asked if you had any serious scholarship that agreed the “grammar shows” Matthew 29:9-10 = Matthew 24:21?

It’s not difficult to find serious scholarship on Matthew 24:21 being = to the wrath on apostate Israel. But it sure seems impossible to find any serious scholarship that agrees with anything that you claim.

Ellicot for English readers on Matthew 24:21
“The words come from Daniel 12:1. One who reads the narrative of Josephus will hardly hesitate to adopt his language, “that all miseries that had been known from the beginning of the world fell short” of those of the siege of the Holy City (Wars, v. 13, §§ 4, 5). Other sieges may have witnessed, before and since, scenes of physical wretchedness equally appalling, but nothing that history records offers anything parallel to the alternations of fanatic hope and frenzied despair that attended the breaking up of the faith and polity of Israel.”

Barnes notes on the Bible Mathew 24:21
“There shall be great tribulation - The word "tribulation" means calamity or "suffering." Luke Luk 21:24 has specified in what this tribulation would consist: "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 shall be fulfilled." That is, until the time allotted for the Gentiles "to do it" shall be fully accomplished, or as long as God is pleased to suffer them to do it.
The first thing mentioned by Luke is, that they should fall "by the edge of the sword" - that is, would be slain in war, as the sword was then principally used in war. This was most strikingly fulfilled. Josephus, in describing it, uses almost the very words of our Saviour. "All the calamities, says he, which had befallen any nation from the beginning of the world" were but small in comparison with those of the Jews. - Jewish Wars, b. i. preface, section 4.”

John Gill on Matthew 24:21
“be such as was not since the beginning of the world, to this time, no, nor ever shall be. The burning of Sodom and Gomorrha, the bondage of the children of Israel in Egypt, their captivity in Babylon, and all their distresses and afflictions in the times of the Maccabees, are nothing to be compared with the calamities which befell the Jews in the siege and destruction of Jerusalem. Great desolations have been made in the besieging and at the taking of many famous cities, as Troy, Babylon, Carthage, &c. but none of them are to be mentioned with the deplorable case of this city. Whoever reads Josephus's account will be fully convinced of this; and readily join with him, who was an eyewitness of it, when he says (m), that

"never did any city suffer such things, nor was there ever any generation that more abounded in malice or wickedness.''

And indeed, all this came upon them for their impenitence and infidelity, and for their rejection and murdering of the Son of God; for as never any before, or since, committed the sin they did, or ever will, so there never did, or will, the same calamity befall a nation, as did them.”

Cambridge Bible for schools and college on Matthew 24:21
“21. great tribulation] “Jerusalem, a city that had been liable to so many miseries during the siege, that had it enjoyed as much happiness from its first foundation, it would certainly have been the envy of the world.” Josephus, B. J. vii. 6. 5.

No words can describe the unequalled horrors of this siege. It was the Passover season, and Jews from all parts were crowded within the walls.”

John Calvin on Matthew 24:21
“21 For there will then be great tribulation. Luke says also, that there will be days of vengeance, and of wrath on that people, that all things which are written may be fulfilled”

Adam Clarke on Matthew 24:21.
“For then shall be great tribulation - No history can furnish us with a parallel to the calamities and miseries of the Jews: - rapine, murder, famine, and pestilence within: fire and sword, and all the horrors of war, without. Our Lord wept at the foresight of these calamities; and it is almost impossible for any humane person to read the relation of them in Josephus without weeping also. St. Luke, Luke 21:22, calls these the days of vengeance, that all things which were written might be fulfilled.”

So as all readers of this thread who understand simple, basic grammar can see, the words "Then, and, therefore, but, for and because" (which are translations of the Greek words tote, kai, de, oun and gar), join Matthew 24:9-31 together into one and the same passage talking about the same tribulation of the disciples at the end of the Age that is introduced in Matthew 24:9-14,

but those who will refuse to either acknowledge the fact or address it in any way, will simply continue to create red herrings in order to continue on their own self-created merry-go-round, rather than ever acknowledging the fact which stares at us all as we read Matthew 24:9-31.

So let's address the red herring introduced by those who are having fun on their own self-created merry-go-round:

CONTRADICTION BETWEEN
MATTHEW 24 AND LUKE 21:20-24​

In Matthew's gospel, those who are in Judea are told to flee to the mountains when they see "the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet stand in the holy place (let the reader understand)" (Matthew 24:15-22),

But Luke's record of the Olivet Discourse makes it abundantly clear that they should flee Judea when they see armies gathered against Jerusalem (Luke 21:20-24) - which points to what took place in 70 A.D:

"But woe to those who are with child, and to those suckling in those days! For there shall be great distress (ἀνάγκη anánkē) in the land and wrath (ὀργή orgḗ) upon this people." (Luke 21:23).

"And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!" (Matthew 24:19).

As the reader of this thread can see, the above contradiction is often employed as a "proof-text" for eschatological models that ignore both the context of Matthew 24:9-31, and the difference between the tribulation of the disciples and God's wrath upon unbelievers.

Side note: Luke was not an eye-witness, but received his account from eyewitnesses, and wrote down what they said - but in any case, any judge in a court of law knows that when two different eye-witness accounts differ slightly in details, this is evidence that the event that they are bearing witness to actually happened, or the words they are repeating from memory were actually spoken.

So without choosing a side between Matthew's account and Luke's account regarding at what point the disciples were told that they should flee Judea, and without attempting to 'correct' either account, bear in mind the following:

1. The holy place ceased being the Jerusalem temple from the moment Jesus died on the cross; and
2. Matthew 24:9-31 is joined together into one passage about the same subject of the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus at the end of the Age by the words "and, therefore, but, for, and because"; and
3. The location, audience and context of Matthew 24:9-31 is the Mount of OIlves, the disciples of Jesus, and tribulation of the disciples of Jesus at the end of the Age, and the return of Christ, which is different to Jesus' subject while He was still in the temple (which was the coming destruction of the temple); and
4. There are parallels between the end-of-days events listed in Matthew Chapter 24 and the end-of-days events mentioned in 2 Thessalonians Chapter 2; and
5. The resurrection of the saints which Jesus promised at the last day has not yet occurred; and
6. There is a very similar call to come out of Babylon the Great in the Revelation:

Old Testament faithful: Capital City: Jerusalem.
New Testament faithful: City: New Jerusalem.

Old Testament harlot: Jerusalem that was destroyed in 70 A.D.
New Testament harlot: Babylon the Great that is going to be destroyed.

Old: Jesus told the saints to flee Judea (Jerusalem was its capital city).
New: Jesus tells the saints to come out of Babylon the Great.

Old: Wrath of God came upon Jerusalem.
New: Wrath of God will come upon Babylon the Great.

Old: One geographical location.
New: "The waters which you saw, where the harlot sits are peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues." (Revelation 17:15) (In other words, "catholic", which means "universal", or comprised of peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues).

I assume the readers of this thread will notice how it's always those who have some or other eschatological model to uphold (rather than scripture) who will only acknowledge and address some facts but not others when they discuss any portion of scripture.

@claninja It's your own self-created merry-go-round produced by your own red herrings produced by your own refusal to acknowledge the facts regarding the grammar, the context, the location, the audience and the subject of Matthew 24:9-31 that you are swinging around on.

So like I said, have fun.

 

[claninja]

So as all readers of this thread who understand simple, basic grammar can see, the words "Then, and, therefore, but, for and because" (which are translations of the Greek words tote, kai, de, oun and gar), join Matthew 24:9-31 together into one and the same passage talking about the same tribulation of the disciples at the end of the Age that is introduced in Matthew 24:9-14,

but those who will refuse to either acknowledge the fact or address it in any way, will simply continue to create red herrings in order to continue on their own self-created merry-go-round, rather than ever acknowledging the fact which stares at us all as we read Matthew 24:9-31.

So let's address the red herring introduced by those who are having fun on their own self-created merry-go-round:

CONTRADICTION BETWEEN
MATTHEW 24 AND LUKE 21:20-24​

In Matthew's gospel, those who are in Judea are told to flee to the mountains when they see "the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet stand in the holy place (let the reader understand)" (Matthew 24:15-22),

But Luke's record of the Olivet Discourse makes it abundantly clear that they should flee Judea when they see armies gathered against Jerusalem (Luke 21:20-24) - which points to what took place in 70 A.D:

"But woe to those who are with child, and to those suckling in those days! For there shall be great distress (ἀνάγκη anánkē) in the land and wrath (ὀργή orgḗ) upon this people." (Luke 21:23).

"And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!" (Matthew 24:19).

As the reader of this thread can see, the above contradiction is often employed as a "proof-text" for eschatological models that ignore both the context of Matthew 24:9-31, and the difference between the tribulation of the disciples and God's wrath upon unbelievers.

Side note: Luke was not an eye-witness, but received his account from eyewitnesses, and wrote down what they said - but in any case, any judge in a court of law knows that when two different eye-witness accounts differ slightly in details, this is evidence that the event that they are bearing witness to actually happened, or the words they are repeating from memory were actually spoken.

So without choosing a side between Matthew's account and Luke's account regarding at what point the disciples were told that they should flee Judea, and without attempting to 'correct' either account, bear in mind the following:

1. The holy place ceased being the Jerusalem temple from the moment Jesus died on the cross; and
2. Matthew 24:9-31 is joined together into one passage about the same subject of the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus at the end of the Age by the words "and, therefore, but, for, and because"; and
3. The location, audience and context of Matthew 24:9-31 is the Mount of OIlves, the disciples of Jesus, and tribulation of the disciples of Jesus at the end of the Age, and the return of Christ, which is different to Jesus' subject while He was still in the temple (which was the coming destruction of the temple); and
4. There are parallels between the end-of-days events listed in Matthew Chapter 24 and the end-of-days events mentioned in 2 Thessalonians Chapter 2; and
5. The resurrection of the saints which Jesus promised at the last day has not yet occurred; and
6. There is a very similar call to come out of Babylon the Great in the Revelation:

Old Testament faithful: Capital City: Jerusalem.
New Testament faithful: City: New Jerusalem.

Old Testament harlot: Jerusalem that was destroyed in 70 A.D.
New Testament harlot: Babylon the Great that is going to be destroyed.

Old: Jesus told the saints to flee Judea (Jerusalem was its capital city).
New: Jesus tells the saints to come out of Babylon the Great.

Old: Wrath of God came upon Jerusalem.
New: Wrath of God will come upon Babylon the Great.

Old: One geographical location.
New: "The waters which you saw, where the harlot sits are peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues." (Revelation 17:15) (In other words, "catholic", which means "universal", or comprised of peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues).

I assume the readers of this thread will notice how it's always those who have some or other eschatological model to uphold (rather than scripture) who will only acknowledge and address some facts but not others when they discuss any portion of scripture.

@claninja It's your own self-created merry-go-round produced by your own red herrings produced by your own refusal to acknowledge the facts regarding the grammar, the context, the location, the audience and the subject of Matthew 24:9-31 that you are swinging around on.

So like I said, have fun.

Your red herring argument of the definitions “but”, “then”, “therefore”, etc…. is irrelevant to my point.

Your OP is based on a strawman. Preterism, whether a wrong or right mode of interpreting scripture, does NOT conflate the persecution of the saints in Matthew 24:9-10 with the great tribulation of Matthew 24:21 nor the days of wrath in luke 21:23. To claim such, as your OP does, is blatantly false.

Additionally, NOT conflating the persecution of the saints in Matthew 24:9-10 with the great tribulation of Matthew 24:21 and Luke 21:23 is NOT exclusive to preterism as evidenced by the scholarly commentaries I provided from Adam Clarke, John Calvin, John Gill (Premill), benson, Barnes, etc..

You however, have not provided a single scholarly commentary in support for your own personal and unique interpretation.

I have no problem with you having a personal interpretation (we all do), until it requires you to create a strawman against preterism to foist itself up. So, i will continue to call out your strawman.

 

[claninja]

While I do grasp the point you are attempting to make, verse 24 in Revelation 18 also indicates that in her is found all that were slain upon the earth. Which has to mean they are slain before verse 21 is fulfilled. And if verse 21 was allegedly already fulfilled 2000 years ago, and the fact there are still those being slain upon the earth after that, and that it is in her where this shed blood is found, it is then not reasonable that verse 21 has already been fulfilled.


Granted, in some cases earth is not always meaning the entire planet. Sometimes it is only meaning a specific region on the planet. Could that be the case with verse 24? No, the fact we are told the following in that same chapter.

Revelation 18:23 And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.


The text doesn't say some nations, it says all nations. All nations give the impression this is involving global rather than regional.

Revelation 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations , and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;


Here is another mention of all nations, which should give us a clue as to how we should interpret 'all nations' in the book of Revelation including ch 18. Are Preterists going to interpret all nations in this verse one way and all nations in Revelation 18 in an entirely different way? Are Preterists going to argue that all nations per Revelation 7:9 that this is involving regional rather than global in order to agree with how they are interpreting all nations in Revelation 18?

Davidpt, the Bible is full of hyperbole.

“Critics may object, but they do so without knowledge of the ancient principles of rhetoric (as expressed by writers like Quintillian) and exaggeration (as is found typically on Ancient Near Eastern war inscriptions and elsewhere; see below).” - Tektonics.org Bible apologetics and education

 

[parousia70]

1. The holy place ceased being the Jerusalem temple from the moment Jesus died on the cross;

I guess the writer of Hebrews didn't get that memo?

Hebrews 9:24-25
24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another—

 

[DavidPT]

1. The holy place ceased being the Jerusalem temple from the moment Jesus died on the cross;

It's unbelieveable that Christians would think that Jesus thought the 2nd temple was still the holy place in 70 AD. That Jesus would think once He dies and rises, the 2nd temple would still be the holy place 40 years later. As if Jesus didn't know that He would die and rise before that of the events pertaining to Matthew 24:15-21 were to take place, thus making a brick and mortar temple obsolete at that point.

Let's look at what they are conflating here. BTW, there are even some interpreters who take the Discourse to also involve the 2nd coming, that are conflating these things as well. So it's not just those interpreters who don't see the Discourse involving the 2nd coming in the end of this age that are conflating these things.

And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh

If one takes this to involve 70 AD, that one must take this in the literal sense.

But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not

And if one is also taking this to involve 70 AD, that one must take this in the literal sense as well.

We then have this---when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies--when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, stand in the holy place, standing where it ought not

How could these be describing the same events? How can when Jerusalem is being surrounded with armies, meaning they haven't even entered into the city yet, be the same thing as this---when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, stand in the holy place, standing where it ought not? Per this scenario how could the holy place be where the armies are surrounding the city, rather than be in the city itself? Isn't that where the 2nd temple was? It wasn't outside of the city where the armies were surrounding the city. That couldn't possibly be the holy place per this scenerio.

As if it makes sense that Jesus was unsure about things. First He says when you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, those in Judea are to flee to the mountains. In the event some didn't believe Him about that, thus didn't flee when they noted Jerusalem was surrounded by armies, He gives them another opportunity to believe Him. This time, since they didn't believe Him about Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, assuming they never fled at the time, they are to now wait until they see the abomination of desolation, stand in the holy place, standing where it ought not, then they are to flee to the mountains since they never did that initially when Jerusalem was being surrounded by armies.

Some interpreters point out that it is unreasonable, the fact both Matthew 24 and Mark 13 involve fleeing to the mountains as does the Luke 21 account, for any interpreter to then insist these accounts are not involving the same events. As if they have room to talk about something being unreasonable when their interpretation of these accounts has Jesus confusing His readers about when they should flee, has Jesus confusing His readers about what the holy place is after He has died and rose. As if an abomination involving something already obsolete at the time, that this somehow makes sense. keeping in mind these interpreters have them not seeing the AOD until 40 years later in 70 AD, since that is when they have them fleeing to the mountains. Thus an AOD involving an obsolete temple.

 

[DavidPT]

Davidpt, the Bible is full of hyperbole.



“Critics may object, but they do so without knowledge of the ancient principles of rhetoric (as expressed by writers like Quintillian) and exaggeration (as is found typically on Ancient Near Eastern war inscriptions and elsewhere; see below).” - Tektonics.org Bible apologetics and education

When the text is saying all nations like that, I simply take it to mean that it is involving something global since all nations depict something global. Sure, hyperbole might explain some of this, thus it doesn't have to literally mean every single nation on the planet though it could mean that, but even so, all nations still depict global, which then explains blood shed on the earth, the fact saints have been martyred globally rather than just in a specific region on the planet. The reason why they have is because Christianity eventually spread globally and still is. Which means there is always going to be somewhere on the planet where there are those that won't tolerate Christianity.

Why is anything global irrelevant to Preterists when it comes to the Discourse, and the book of Revelation, for example?

 

[Zao is life]

Your red herring argument of the definitions “but”, “then”, “therefore”, etc…. is irrelevant to my point.

Your OP is based on a strawman. Preterism, whether a wrong or right mode of interpreting scripture, does NOT conflate the persecution of the saints in Matthew 24:9-10 with the great tribulation of Matthew 24:21 nor the days of wrath in luke 21:23. To claim such, as your OP does, is blatantly false.

Additionally, NOT conflating the persecution of the saints in Matthew 24:9-10 with the great tribulation of Matthew 24:21 and Luke 21:23 is NOT exclusive to preterism as evidenced by the scholarly commentaries I provided from Adam Clarke, John Calvin, John Gill (Premill), benson, Barnes, etc..

You however, have not provided a single scholarly commentary in support for your own personal and unique interpretation.

I have no problem with you having a personal interpretation (we all do), until it requires you to create a strawman against preterism to foist itself up. So, i will continue to call out your strawman.

Your scholarly commentary references are your red herrings which have produced your own self-created merry-go-round produced by your own refusal to acknowledge the facts regarding the grammar, the context, the location, the audience and the subject of Matthew 24:9-31 that you are swinging around on.

So like I said, have fun. I won't address you red herrings until you address the issue regarding the grammar and what the grammar points to,as well as the context, the location, the audience and the subject of Matthew 24:9-31

But you can't. So you just keep on repeating your red herrings.

 

[parousia70]

It's unbelieveable that Christians would think that Jesus thought the 2nd temple was still the holy place in 70 AD.

That poor unbelievable Christian fella who wrote Hebrews must not have understood correctly then.

 

[DavidPT]

That poor unbelievable Christian fella who wrote Hebrews must not have understood correctly then.

The same way I see it being disrespectable to Christ by what He accomplished on the cross, by some interpreters insisting animal sacrificing resumes in the end of this age, and that some of these same interpreters also insisting animal sacrificing resumes after Christ returns(Ezekiel 40-48), it is equally disrespectable to Christ by what He accomplished on the cross by insisting the holy place per Matthew 24 and Mark 13, this is meaning the 2nd temple in 70 AD right before it was destroyed.

Your interpretation of Matthew 24 and Mark 13 involving the holy place(the temple of God) has Jesus contradicting how the NT is defining the temple of God once Christ has died and rose. Why would Jesus still call the 2nd temple the holy place when He already knew good and well that He would die and rise before the 2nd temple is destroyed, and that He knew good and well that this makes that temple no longer the holy place? Except He is going to be deceitful about it, I guess, and still call it the holy place, even though He knows it is no longer the holy place.

 

[Zao is life]

It's unbelieveable that Christians would think that Jesus thought the 2nd temple was still the holy place in 70 AD. That Jesus would think once He dies and rises, the 2nd temple would still be the holy place 40 years later. As if Jesus didn't know that He would die and rise before that of the events pertaining to Matthew 24:15-21 were to take place, thus making a brick and mortar temple obsolete at that point.

Let's look at what they are conflating here. BTW, there are even some interpreters who take the Discourse to also involve the 2nd coming, that are conflating these things as well. So it's not just those interpreters who don't see the Discourse involving the 2nd coming in the end of this age that are conflating these things.

And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh

If one takes this to involve 70 AD, that one must take this in the literal sense.

But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not

And if one is also taking this to involve 70 AD, that one must take this in the literal sense as well.

We then have this---when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies--when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, stand in the holy place, standing where it ought not

How could these be describing the same events? How can when Jerusalem is being surrounded with armies, meaning they haven't even entered into the city yet, be the same thing as this---when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, stand in the holy place, standing where it ought not? Per this scenario how could the holy place be where the armies are surrounding the city, rather than be in the city itself? Isn't that where the 2nd temple was? It wasn't outside of the city where the armies were surrounding the city. That couldn't possibly be the holy place per this scenerio.

As if it makes sense that Jesus was unsure about things. First He says when you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, those in Judea are to flee to the mountains. In the event some didn't believe Him about that, thus didn't flee when they noted Jerusalem was surrounded by armies, He gives them another opportunity to believe Him. This time, since they didn't believe Him about Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, assuming they never fled at the time, they are to now wait until they see the abomination of desolation, stand in the holy place, standing where it ought not, then they are to flee to the mountains since they never did that initially when Jerusalem was being surrounded by armies.

Some interpreters point out that it is unreasonable, the fact both Matthew 24 and Mark 13 involve fleeing to the mountains as does the Luke 21 account, for any interpreter to then insist these accounts are not involving the same events. As if they have room to talk about something being unreasonable when their interpretation of these accounts has Jesus confusing His readers about when they should flee, has Jesus confusing His readers about what the holy place is after He has died and rose. As if an abomination involving something already obsolete at the time, that this somehow makes sense. keeping in mind these interpreters have them not seeing the AOD until 40 years later in 70 AD, since that is when they have them fleeing to the mountains. Thus an AOD involving an obsolete temple.

I agree - and that discrepancy between being told to flee when they see armies gathering against Jerusalem as opposed to when they see the AoD in the holy place or where it ought not be, is another totally valid point.

Though writing some years after Jesus gave the Discourse, the author of Matthew's gospel was an eyewitness, whereas Luke was not, but was relying on the testimony of eyewitnesses.

We were not eyewitnesses, and for all we know, Jesus could have said something like, "when you see armies gather against Jerusalem, let those in Judea flee to the mountains", and then could have again said a second time, "And when you see the AoD stand in the holy place (let the reader understand), let those in Judea flee to the mountains".

One thing we do know is that Jesus did not spell it out for His disciples - else they would not have asked what they asked Him immediately before His ascension. Prophecy is cryptic, because only the wise will understand, but wisdom is blocked if there is no humility to seek for the scriptures to give you the answers, after you've continually sought out God for the wisdom, the insight and the understanding, like Daniel did.

I'm afraid that most Christians - especially today - seem to rather seek out the wisdom, insight and understanding of the flawed eschatological model that they feel they must uphold rather than scripture.

And they expose themselves when they are not honest enough to acknowledge certain facts (such as the fact that the very grammar of Matthew 24 joins the entire passage into one long passage about the tribulation of the disciples which is introduced in Matthew 24:9-14), as well as the fact that the location where Jesus said these things was no longer in the temple, the audience was no longer the scribes and Pharisees but the disciples, and the subject was no longer the coming destruction of the temple, but the tribulation of the saints at the end of the Age leading to the return of Christ.

When we point these things out, the reaction we get from some is as though we wrote the gospels. But the truth is that all we are doing is discussing what IS there, and those who uphold their beloved eschatological models rather than scripture will continue to produce red herrings and other deceitful debate tools, such as falsely accusing someone of producing a straw-man argument when it's pointed out to them that according to the grammar of what is written, the tribulation being spoken about in Matthew 24:21-22 & Matthew 24:29 is the same tribulation that was introduced in Matthew 24:9-14; and so according to the very grammar of Matthew 24:9-31 they are conflating the tribulation of the disciples that is indeed mentioned in Matthew 24:9-31 with the wrath of God coming upon Jerusalem mentioned in Luke 21:20-24.

 

[Zao is life]

I guess the writer of Hebrews didn't get that memo?

Hebrews 9:24-25
24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another—

I guess you are trying to imply that the writer of Hebrews was contradicting what was said in Acts 7:48; Acts 17:24; and in 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 & 1 Corinthians 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16; and Ephesians 2:21.

And I think my guess with regards to the above is spot-on.

I guess you will also claim that the naos mentioned in Revelation 11:1 is the Jerusalem temple and the holy city the Jerusalem that was destroyed in 70 A.D, though the Revelation calls only New Jerusalem the holy city.

 

[parousia70]

The same way I see it being disrespectable to Christ by what He accomplished on the cross, by some interpreters insisting animal sacrificing resumes in the end of this age, and that some of these same interpreters also insisting animal sacrificing resumes after Christ returns(Ezekiel 40-48), it is equally disrespectable to Christ by what He accomplished on the cross by insisting the holy place per Matthew 24 and Mark 13, this is meaning the 2nd temple in 70 AD right before it was destroyed.

Your interpretation of Matthew 24 and Mark 13 involving the holy place(the temple of God) has Jesus contradicting how the NT is defining the temple of God once Christ has died and rose. Why would Jesus still call the 2nd temple the holy place when He already knew good and well that He would die and rise before the 2nd temple is destroyed, and that He knew good and well that this makes that temple no longer the holy place? Except He is going to be deceitful about it, I guess, and still call it the holy place, even though He knows it is no longer the holy place.

Then, as I said, I guess the writer of Hebrews didn't get the message. Poor fella.

 

[parousia70]

I guess you are trying to imply that the writer of Hebrews was contradicting what was said in Acts 7:48; Acts 17:24; and in 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 & 1 Corinthians 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16; and Ephesians 2:21.

Why don't you exegete Hebrews 9:24-25 for us then? Tell us what it really means, since you contend it does not mean what it says.