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

[Zao is life]

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?

It's so true what you say above.

"And he says to me, The waters which you saw, where the harlot sits are peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues"
-- "And he was given to it to war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given to him over every tribe and tongue and nation."
-- "After these things I looked, and lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, out of all nations and kindreds and people and tongues, stood before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palms in their hands."
-- "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be proclaimed in all the world as a witness to all nations. And then the end shall come." -- "Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and will kill you. And you will be hated of all nations for My name's sake."

-- "And there was given to it to give a spirit to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast might both speak, and might cause as many as would not worship the image of the beast to be killed." -- "Let not anyone deceive you by any means. For that Day shall not come unless there first comes a falling away, and the man of sin shall be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, setting himself forth, that he is God." -- "And he opened his mouth in blasphemy toward God, to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle, and those dwelling in Heaven."

-- "Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoever reads, let him understand). Then let those in Judea flee into the mountains."

Revelation 17:15; Revelation 13:7; Revelation 7:9; Matthew 24:14; Matthew 24:9; Revelation 13:15; 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4; Revelation 13:6; Matthew 24:15-16.

"Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, "This people draws near to Me with their mouth, and honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. But in vain they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Matthew 15:7-9.

The Jewish scribes and Pharisees taught for doctrines their twisted versions of the commandments of God,

and the New Testament's scribes and Pharisees teach for doctrines their twisted versions of the return of Christ and what is - or rather Who is - the only holy place or Tabernacle of God - something which is extremely grievous to the Son of God who taught all generations of His disciples to be watching for His return, and extremely grievous to the body of Christ, IMO,

- but they expose their own dishonesty by being not even honest enough to acknowledge it or address it when it's pointed out to them that the very grammar of the passage regarding the tribulation of the saints and the return of Christ says the opposite of what they teach.

 

[Zao is life]

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.

The apostles and authors of the Bible in the verses I quoted plus all the verses in this post here, and many other New Testament passages besides, have already given the only correct exegesis. The fact that you don't believe them and read into Hebrews 9:24-25 what you claim it means instead, speaks volumes.

The writer of the Hebrews was clearly not implying that the temple in Jerusalem that was made with human hands was still a "holy place". He had already said it was the pattern or shadow of the true tabernacle, and the shadow had become old and ready to vanish away (because the building which represented the Old Testament law was still standing when he wrote Hebrews and had not yet been destroyed).

Jesus is the only Tabernacle of God. He is the Temple they destroyed, which was raised again in three days. And because He is the only Tabernacle of God, those who abide in Him through faith in Him are the living stones making up the Tabernacle of God on earth that is not made with human hands. This is the only Tabernacle the writer of the Hebrews considered the Temple of God when he compared it with the temple made with human hands that was no longer the holy place, using that temple to teach us about how weak and useless the temple made with human hands was for bringing eternal salvation.

You seek to negate the Doctrine of God and His gospel message by your theology. But you cannot. You merely expose yourself by your refusal to acknowledge the fact that the grammar in the passage Matthew 24:9-31, by the use of the words "and, therefore, but, for and because", joins the whole passage into one and the same passage about the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus (when they become hated of all nations for His name's sake) that was introduced in Matthew 24:9-14. Instead of acknowledging the fact, you merely continue to ignore it and produce posts containing more red herrings full of more false claims like the one in your post above.

I'm not going to respond to any more red herrings on the part of Preterists until they acknowledge what the grammar in Matthew 24:9-31 does by the use of the words "and, therefore, but, for and because" - whether your red herrings consist of commentaries of other scholars, or scriptures which you misinterpret such as the one in Hebrews you produced as your latest red herring.

 

[claninja]

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.

In the OP, You claimed preterism conflated the tribulation of the saints with the days of the wrath. I informed you that this is not true, and is a distortion of what preterism believes. In other words, your OP is built upon a strawman. Your simple counter should have been to just provide evidence where preterism believes this. But you can’t, so you have to deflect and change the subject.

You, then didn’t even address your strawman man, but switched to an irrelevant argument about the “grammar” showing that the persecution of the saints is the great tribulation. This would would be known as a red herring - providing irrelevant information (“grammar showing”) in attempt to distract and avoid addressing your strawman (“preterism conflated the persecution of the saints with the days of wrath”.).

So then when I actually address your “grammar shows” by asking you to provide any serious scholarship that supports YOUR interpretation of the grammar, you avoid providing any, and instead demand that I provide scholarship proving the that Greek scholarship on the definitions of Greek words is wrong….like what In the world are you talking about? No one said the Greek definition of words is wrong? Another strawman argument. In stead I provide multiple scholarly commentaries that believe the great tribulation of Matthew 24:21 = the days of wrath in luke 21:23 in order to bring the conversation back to your original strawman, which you continue to avoid.

Again, whether preterism is wrong or right, your OP is a strawman. Your entire premise is built on false information.

 

[claninja]

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.

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?

“global” in first century mindset referred to the Roman Empire.

[3625 (oikouménē) is "the land that is being inhabited, the land in a state of habitation, the inhabited world, that is, the Roman world (orbis terrarum), for all outside it was regarded as of no account" (Souter).

Luke 2:1 1In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world (oikoumene) should be registered

Matthew 24:14 14And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world (oikoumene) as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

Revelation 3:10 10Because you have kept my word about patient endurance, I will keep you from the hour of trial that is coming on the whole world (oikoumene), to try those who dwell on the earth.

You still haven’t addressed my question to you? Why didn’t Jesus go beyond 70ad in Luke 11 and Matthew 23?

 

[claninja]

until they acknowledge what the grammar in Matthew 24:9-31 does by the use of the words "and, therefore, but, for and because" - whether your red herrings consist of commentaries of other scholars, or scriptures which you misinterpret such as the one in Hebrews you produced as your latest red herring.

sure, let’s say your 100% right on the grammar and all the scholarship agrees with you, so we can move on from this irrelevant point.

How does this address the false premise in the OP, that preterists or pretribulationists, who are now completely wrong about what they believe, still don’t conflate the persecution of the disciples (matthew 24:9-10) with the great tribulation (matthew 24:21) and days of the wrath (luke 21:23)?

 

[Zao is life]

sure, let’s say your 100% right on the grammar and all the scholarship agrees with you, so we can move on from this irrelevant point.

How does this address the false premise in the OP, that preterists or pretribulationists, who are now completely wrong about what they believe, still don’t conflate the persecution of the disciples (matthew 24:9-10) with the great tribulation (matthew 24:21) and days of the wrath (luke 21:23)?

All you've done is to produce red herrings - including commentaries by other Christians - that completely ignore the grammar of Matthew 24:9-31 and conflate it with the wrath of God coming upon Jerusalem in Luke 21:23.

But you won't quote the commentaries of the scholars who disagree with you and the scholars you quote.

As though the opinions of scholars who've made commentaries change the text and its grammar.

PS: There are other scholars whose commentaries disagree with those carefully chosen by you: Read the commentaries of Greek scholars who disagree with you, so that your eyes may be opened. Here is another:

Ellicot's Commentary
Quote
(15) The abomination of desolation.—The words, as they stand in Daniel 12:11, seem to refer to the desecration of the sanctuary by the mad attempt of Antiochus Epiphanes to stop the “daily sacrifice,” and to substitute an idolatrous worship in its place (2 Maccabees 6:1-9). What analogous desecration our Lord’s words point to, is a question that has received very different answers. We may at once narrow the range of choice by remembering (1) that it is before the destruction of the Temple, and therefore cannot be the presence of the plundering troops, or of the eagles of the legions in it; (2) that the “abomination” stands in the “Holy Place,” and therefore it cannot be identified with the appearance of the Roman eagles in the lines of the besieging legions under Cestius, A.D. 68. The answer is probably to be found in the faction-fights, the murders and outrages, the profane consecration of usurping priests, which the Jewish historian describes so fully (Jos. Wars, iv. 6, §§ 6-8). The Zealots had got possession of the Temple at an early stage in the siege, and profaned it by these and other like outrages; they made the Holy Place (in the very words of the historian) “a garrison and stronghold” of their tyrannous and lawless rule; while the better priests looked on from afar and wept tears of horror. The mysterious prediction of 2Thessalonians 2:4 may point, in the first instance, to some kindred “abomination.”
End Quote

You're just making it more and more obvious you choose to live in denial that Matthew 24:9-31 uses the words "and, therefore, but for and because" to join the whole passage into one and the same passage about the tribulation of the saints which is introduced in Matthew 24:9-14, and you choose to continue to conflate the tribulation of the saints spoken about in Matthew 24:9-31 with the wrath of God coming upon Jerusalem, spoken about in Luke 21:23 - because that's what you want it to mean.

There's no straw man argument by any means, just because you have reinvented the definition of the meaning of a straw man argument.

It's what you are doing with the text of Matthew 24:9-31. Just because the commentators quoted in your red herrings have the same opinion as you (but not of other shcolars), makes no difference to the fact that the grammar of Matthew 24:9-31 joins the passage into one and the same passage that says nothing about the wrath of God coming upon Jerusalem, but speaks only about the tribulation of the saints.

You just keep making it obvious that you refuse to read what the passage is saying (exegesis) but will ignore the grammar to continue with your Preterist eisegesis, and so you will continue to conflate the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus spoken about in Matthew 24:9-31 with the wrath of God coming upon Jerusalem in Luke 21:23.

 

[Zao is life]

sure, let’s say your 100% right on the grammar and all the scholarship agrees with you, so we can move on from this irrelevant point.

How does this address the false premise in the OP, that preterists or pretribulationists, who are now completely wrong about what they believe, still don’t conflate the persecution of the disciples (matthew 24:9-10) with the great tribulation (matthew 24:21) and days of the wrath (luke 21:23)?

I'm really glad you want to move on from your irrelevant discussion about the reasons why you conflate the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus mentioned in Matthew 24:9-31 with the wrath of God coming upon Jerusalem mentioned in Luke 21:23.

It's about time. Very few scholars, if asked, would deny that the grammar joins the passage into one and the same passage from Matthew 24:9 to Matthew 24:31 (and beyond verse 31).

.. unless they are Preterists or Partial Preterists who need to continue conflating the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus mentioned in Matthew 24:9-31 with the wrath of God coming upon Jerusalem mentioned in Luke 21:23.

 

[claninja]

All you've done is to produce red herrings - including commentaries by other Christians - that completely ignore the grammar of Matthew 24:9-31 and conflate it with the wrath of God coming upon Jerusalem in Luke 21:23.

But you won't quote the commentaries of the scholars who disagree with you and the scholars you quote.

As though the opinions of scholars who've made commentaries change the text and its grammar.

PS: There are other scholars whose commentaries disagree with those carefully chosen by you: Read the commentaries of Greek scholars who disagree with you, so that your eyes may be opened. Here is another:

Ellicot's Commentary
Quote
(15) The abomination of desolation.—The words, as they stand in Daniel 12:11, seem to refer to the desecration of the sanctuary by the mad attempt of Antiochus Epiphanes to stop the “daily sacrifice,” and to substitute an idolatrous worship in its place (2 Maccabees 6:1-9). What analogous desecration our Lord’s words point to, is a question that has received very different answers. We may at once narrow the range of choice by remembering (1) that it is before the destruction of the Temple, and therefore cannot be the presence of the plundering troops, or of the eagles of the legions in it; (2) that the “abomination” stands in the “Holy Place,” and therefore it cannot be identified with the appearance of the Roman eagles in the lines of the besieging legions under Cestius, A.D. 68. The answer is probably to be found in the faction-fights, the murders and outrages, the profane consecration of usurping priests, which the Jewish historian describes so fully (Jos. Wars, iv. 6, §§ 6-8). The Zealots had got possession of the Temple at an early stage in the siege, and profaned it by these and other like outrages; they made the Holy Place (in the very words of the historian) “a garrison and stronghold” of their tyrannous and lawless rule; while the better priests looked on from afar and wept tears of horror. The mysterious prediction of 2Thessalonians 2:4 may point, in the first instance, to some kindred “abomination.”
End Quote

You're just making it more and more obvious you choose to live in denial that Matthew 24:9-31 uses the words "and, therefore, but for and because" to join the whole passage into one and the same passage about the tribulation of the saints which is introduced in Matthew 24:9-14, and you choose to continue to conflate the tribulation of the saints spoken about in Matthew 24:9-31 with the wrath of God coming upon Jerusalem, spoken about in Luke 21:23 - because that's what you want it to mean.

There's no straw man argument by any means, just because you have reinvented the definition of the meaning of a straw man argument.

It's what you are doing with the text of Matthew 24:9-31. Just because the commentators quoted in your red herrings have the same opinion as you (but not of other shcolars), makes no difference to the fact that the grammar of Matthew 24:9-31 joins the passage into one and the same passage that says nothing about the wrath of God coming upon Jerusalem, but speaks only about the tribulation of the saints.

You just keep making it obvious that you refuse to read what the passage is saying (exegesis) but will ignore the grammar to continue with your Preterist eisegesis, and so you will continue to conflate the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus spoken about in Matthew 24:9-31 with the wrath of God coming upon Jerusalem in Luke 21:23.

If you’re 100% right in the grammar, why do you need to distort what preterists believe in the OP? Preterists don’t 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. Still not following why you need to blatantly misrepresent what preterism believes to support your argument?

Ellicot's Commentary
Quote
(15) The abomination of desolation.—The words, as they stand in Daniel 12:11, seem to refer to the desecration of the sanctuary by the mad attempt of Antiochus Epiphanes to stop the “daily sacrifice,” and to substitute an idolatrous worship in its place (2 Maccabees 6:1-9). What analogous desecration our Lord’s words point to, is a question that has received very different answers. We may at once narrow the range of choice by remembering (1) that it is before the destruction of the Temple, and therefore cannot be the presence of the plundering troops, or of the eagles of the legions in it; (2) that the “abomination” stands in the “Holy Place,” and therefore it cannot be identified with the appearance of the Roman eagles in the lines of the besieging legions under Cestius, A.D. 68. The answer is probably to be found in the faction-fights, the murders and outrages, the profane consecration of usurping priests, which the Jewish historian describes so fully (Jos. Wars, iv. 6, §§ 6-8). The Zealots had got possession of the Temple at an early stage in the siege, and profaned it by these and other like outrages; they made the Holy Place (in the very words of the historian) “a garrison and stronghold” of their tyrannous and lawless rule; while the better priests looked on from afar and wept tears of horror. The mysterious prediction of 2Thessalonians 2:4 may point, in the first instance, to some kindred “abomination.

Right, ellicot associates it with the zealots destroying the temple in 66-70ad. Not sure what your point is?

 

[DavidPT]

You still haven’t addressed my question to you? Why didn’t Jesus go beyond 70ad in Luke 11 and Matthew 23?

I don't really have a dispute with how you are interpreting Matthew 23 and Luke 11 since I agree that 70 AD appears to be as far as those accounts are seeing. But it is when I see you applying that to Revelation 18, for example, that I then have a dispute regarding this. Revelation 18 couldn't possibly be seeing only up to 70 AD. There is just too much in that chapter that can't fit, such as----Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all---for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived---in her was found the blood--of all that were slain upon the earth

I don't see it being correct to interpret Revelation 18 in light of Matthew 23 and Luke 11. I don't know how anyone can?

If Revelation 18:22 was fulfilled 2000 years ago, this should mean there is no more blood being shed on the earth, as in Christians being martyred. Therefore, it is not reasonable to think Revelation 18 has already been fulfilled.

The first mistake Preterists are making is taking Babylon the great in a literal sense, that it is meaning a literal city. If verse 24 is telling us that in her is found the blood of all that were slain upon the earth, and that those meant here, some of them are not even slain in the literal city Preterists take this to mean, how then can this be a literal city when some upon the earth are not even slain in this alleged literal city?

Revelation 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.


And what about this part? How can these plagues not involve the last 7 vials of wrath? How can any interpreter think it is reasonable that what is recorded in Revelation 16, that any of this fits 70 AD? Keeping in mind, and that most interpreters agree, Revelation is not chronological throughout. Therefore, just because ch 16 is recorded prior to ch 18, this doesn't necessarily mean the plagues recorded in that ch are not meaning any of the plagues meant per Revelation 18:4.

 

[Zao is life]

Preterists don’t 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.

Contrary to your above false dichotomy Matthew himself 'conflates' the tribulation (thlipsis) of the saints he mentions in his own gospel in Matthew 24:9-10 with the great tribulation (megas thlipsis) he mentions in verses 21-22, by his use of these words:

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 continues like this all the way through the passage.

By saying that you don't 'conflate' the tribulation of the saints mentioned in verses 9-10 with the great tribulation mentioned in verses 21-22, you have just accused Matthew himself, author of the gospel according to Matthew, of doing so.

.. and you have just shown once again that yourself and all Preterists and Partial Preterists have conflated the tribulation of the saints mentioned in the above passage (verse 9-31) with the wrath of God coming upon Jerusalem mentioned by Luke in Luke 21:23.

Thanks for confirming (once again) what my OP is saying.

 

[Zao is life]

Matthew 24:23-24 warns that false Christs and false prophets will appear showing great signs and wonders, so much so that if possible, they would deceive even the elect. This is the second time the appearance of false prophets is mentioned. The first time is in Matthew 24:11.

In Luke's gospel, whereas Luke uses the words distress and wrath to talk about the wrath of God coming upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem when it was surrounded by armies (Luke 21:23), the persecution and tribulation of the disciples of Jesus in the days leading up to the coming of the Son of man is being spoken about in Luke 21:12-19 & Luke 21:27-28; Matthew 24:9-31, and Mark 13:9 & Mark 13:11-13.

Luke's gospel speaks about the destruction of the (Jerusalem) temple in Luke 21:5-7 and then only speaks about the destruction of the city again in Luke 21:20-24. The rest of the verses in Luke 21 speak about the persecution and tribulation of the elect, and their redemption.

It should be clear to the reader of the passage that once Jesus had come out of the temple and sat down on the Mount of Olives (which is opposite the Temple Mount), He had far more to say about the tribulation of the elect, and about the time of His return, than the little that He had said in the temple about its coming destruction.

 

[Zao is life]

You still haven’t addressed my question to you? Why didn’t Jesus go beyond 70ad in Luke 11 and Matthew 23?

You still haven't acknowledged the fact that in Luke 11 and Matthew 23 this is the context:

Location: In the temple courtyard.
Audience: scribes and Pharisees.
Subject: The coming destruction of the city and the temple.

What is the context of the Olivet Discourse from Matthew 24:3? Who is the audience? What is the location? What is the subject introduced in Matthew 24:9?

 

[DavidPT]

Contrary to your above false dichotomy Matthew himself 'conflates' the tribulation (thlipsis) of the saints he mentions in his own gospel in Matthew 24:9-10 with the great tribulation (megas thlipsis) he mentions in verses 21-22, by his use of these words:

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 continues like this all the way through the passage.

By saying that you don't 'conflate' the tribulation of the saints mentioned in verses 9-10 with the great tribulation mentioned in verses 21-22, you have just accused Matthew himself, author of the gospel according to Matthew, of doing so.

.. and you have just shown once again that yourself and all Preterists and Partial Preterists have conflated the tribulation of the saints mentioned in the above passage (verse 9-31) with the wrath of God coming upon Jerusalem mentioned by Luke in Luke 21:23.

Thanks for confirming (once again) what my OP is saying.

As to verse 9 in Matthew 24, how should we interpret that in light of what is recorded in Matthew 10, for example? Such as.

Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not :

Matthew 10:17 But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues;
18 And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.
19 But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak.
20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.
21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.
22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

In Luke 21 it appears to place the time of this persecution prior to the destruction of Jerusalem.

But I'm not even certain what the dispute is to begin with, because in 70 AD the wrath was on unbelieving Jews not Christians. And that no one would think, not even Preterists, that Matthew 24:9 is involving unbelieving Jews being persecuted. Therefore, I'm not seeing how verse 9 is relevant here since it can't apply to the wrath in 70 AD. Or maybe I can see why it might be relevant if one is conflating the wrath upon the unbelieving Jews with that of great tribulation upon the church. It would make it relevant in that regards, I guess. But I don't see that being the same, meaning from the perspective of Preterists, as Preterists conflating verse 9 with the wrath in 70 AD when they already know verse 9 isn't involving unbelieving Jews being persecuted, that it is not God's wrath that is involving verse 9, but it would be God's wrath involving 70 AD.

What one needs to acknowledge and accept, except some refuse to, is that great tribulation is wrath upon the church not wrath upon the unbelieving Jews. And the following undeniably proves it.

Revelation 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

If some of these interpreters are correct that great tribulation per the Discourse is meaning wrath upon the unbelieving Jews in 70 AD, this would undeniably mean the ones meant in this verse, they are all unbelieving Jews. Not one person would agree with that, not even Preterists, so why insist great tribulation was wrath upon the unbelieving Jews in 70 AD when that interpretation makes utter nonsense out of this verse above?

 

[Zao is life]

As to verse 9 in Matthew 24, how should we interpret that in light of what is recorded in Matthew 10, for example? Such as.

Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not :

Matthew 10:17 But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues;
18 And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.
19 But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak.
20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.
21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.
22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

I always look at the context. The context of Matthew 24:10 is Matthew 24:9-14, i.e the gospel will have been preached to all nations, and the time of the end & return of Christ is imminent, in answer to the second part of their question regarding the sign of His coming and of the end of the Age in verse 3.

The above was taking place at the end of His ministry - just before His arrest, trial and crucifixion.

The context of Matthew 10 is Jesus sending out His disciples at a much earlier point during His ministry to preach the gospel to the lost sheep of the house of Israel - not to all nations, but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel:

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be proclaimed in all the world as a witness to all nations. And then the end shall come." Matthew 24:14.

"Do not go into the way of the nations, and do not enter into any city of the Samaritans." Matthew 10:5

The instructions Jesus gave them from Matthew 10:16-42 obviously would pertain also and more especially to the apostles' later ministry following Jesus' ascension when they were told they were to be "witnesses to Me both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and to the end of the earth. "

I'm pretty sure the apostles would have remembered after His ascension what Jesus had told them in Matthew 10:16-42 when they were sent out to the house of Israel only, and they would have realised that lot of that pertained to their later evangelistic mission to the Jews and to all nations. They would probably have realised that their first mission was their 'internship'. The instructions pertained only partly to that mission (see how @DavidPT I corrected the reference here: Matthew 10:22 pertains to Matthew 24:9 & 14).

Matthew 10:23 is difficult to interpret correctly, but we know that Preterists and PP's use it for one of their 'proof-texts' for their false doctrine about Jesus having 'returned' in 70 A.D.

There are a few possibilities with regard to Matthew 10:23 - one being that Jesus joined them again before their first mission was completed - long before His crucifixion, but I'm not going to pretend to know why He said that then, or why that statement is written there - they were only going to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, not to the nations - so why it would be referring to the time the gospel was being taken unto the ends of the earth also, I have no idea. But the rest of the instructions from Matthew 10:16 would certainly pertain to their later missionary journeys also - and to all missionaries since then.

 

[Zao is life]

But I'm not even certain what the dispute is to begin with, because in 70 AD the wrath was on unbelieving Jews not Christians. And that no one would think, not even Preterists, that Matthew 24:9 is involving unbelieving Jews. Therefore, I'm not seeing how verse 9 is relevant here since it can't apply to the wrath in 70 AD. Or maybe I can see why it might be relevant if one is conflating the wrath upon the unbelieving Jews with that of great tribulation upon the church. It would make it relevant in that regards, I guess. But I don't see that being the same, meaning from the perspective of Preterists, as Preterists conflating verse 9 with the wrath in 70 AD when they already know verse 9 isn't involving unbelieving Jews, and that it is not God's wrath that is involving verse 9, but it would be God's wrath involving 70 AD.

What Preterists and PP's don't realise is that because they conflate the tribulation of the disciples mentioned in Matthew 24:21-22 with the wrath of God coming upon Jerusalem mentioned in Luke 21:23, they are also conflating the tribulation of the disciples mentioned in Matthew 24:9-10 with the wrath of God coming upon Jerusalem - because in Matthew's gospel, the tribulation mentioned in Matthew 24:21-22 and Matthew 24:29 is one and the same tribulation that was introduced in Matthew 24:9. It takes place at the end of the Age (Matthew 24:14 and Matthew 24:9).

What they also don't realise, is that the word thlipsis (tribulation) in Matthew 24:9 and megas thlipsis (great tribulation) in Matthew 24:21 do not mean the same as the words anangke (distress) and orge (wrath) mentioned in Luke21:23; AND.. see post #1 - thlipsis and megas thlipsis in the New Testament is the experience of the saints - NOT of the unbelievers in Jerusalem when the wrath (orge) of God came upon the city.

The dispute is about the fact that because Preterists and PP's conflate Matthew 24:21-22 with the wrath of God coming upon Jerusalem mentioned in Luke 21:23, they are indeed conflating the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus to come at the end of the Age (Matthew 24:9-31) with the wrath of God that came upon Jerusalem in 70 A.D and was mentioned in Luke 21:23.

 

[DavidPT]

What Preterists and PP's don't realise is that because they conflate the tribulation of the disciples mentioned in Matthew 24:21-22 with the wrath of God coming upon Jerusalem mentioned in Luke 21:23, they are also conflating the tribulation of the disciples mentioned in Matthew 24:9-10 with the wrath of God coming upon Jerusalem - because in Matthew's gospel, the tribulation mentioned in Matthew 24:21-22 and Matthew 24:29 is one and the same tribulation that was introduced in Matthew 24:9. It takes place at the end of the Age (Matthew 24:14 and Matthew 24:9).

What they also don't realise, is that the word thlipsis (tribulation) in Matthew 24:9 and megas thlipsis (great tribulation) in Matthew 24:21 do not mean the same as the words anangke (distress) and orge (wrath) mentioned in Luke21:23; AND.. see post #1 - thlipsis and megas thlipsis in the New Testament is the experience of the saints - NOT of the unbelievers in Jerusalem when the wrath (orge) of God came upon the city.

The dispute is about the fact that because Preterists and PP's conflate Matthew 24:21-22 with the wrath of God coming upon Jerusalem mentioned in Luke 21:23, they are indeed conflating the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus to come at the end of the Age (Matthew 24:9-31) with the wrath of God that came upon Jerusalem in 70 A.D and was mentioned in Luke 21:23.

The more I think about it, in my mind, the approach you take here is similar to the approach I took with Amils in the past, where they then decided I was misrepresenting their view. Except I wasn't. I was simply doing similar to what you are doing here. If this is supposed to be true, what they are concluding, then how could it be true in light of this or light of that? And this they decided I was misrepresenting their view when all I was doing was attempting to debunk their view. Which is what I basically see you doing in this thread. I guess I understand the dispute in question more than I initially realized.

Some of these same Amils I'm talking about, and you know who they are, though they have been MIA lately, if they were posting in this thread they too would be disagreeing with the OP since they too apply great tribulation per Matthew 24 to that of 70 AD and leading up to it. Except these Amils agree that the Discourse involves the 2nd coming in the end of this age, while Amils such as @claninja disagree that it does. Your OP specifically mentions Preterists, Partial-Preterists, and Pre-tribulationsists. These other Amils, the ones that agree the Discourse records the 2nd coming, what category do they fit in? BTW, there are also Premils who insist great tribulation per Matthew 24, this is pertaining to 70 AD.

What I find interesting about you in particular, it's usually interpreters that take the 70th week to be future still, being the ones that apply Matthew 24:15-21 to the end of this age rather than 70 AD. Except you don't take the 70th week to be future still. Even though I do, at least the last half anyway, I don't apply any of these things in a literal sense like Pretribbers do where they insist it involves a literal rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. I apply 2 Thessalonians 2:4 to the latter half of the 70th week, except I don't take 2 Thessalonians 2:4 in a literal sense. And since there are 2 comings involved, the first one involving what He accomplished on the cross, the 2nd one being when He returns to destroy the man of sin per the 2nd coming, I'm not seeing an issue here with interpreting Daniel 9:27 like I am. It still involves Christ from start to finish the fact there are 2 comings of Christ, not just one coming of Christ.

 

[claninja]

Contrary to your above false dichotomy Matthew himself 'conflates' the tribulation (thlipsis) of the saints he mentions in his own gospel in Matthew 24:9-10 with the great tribulation (megas thlipsis) he mentions in verses 21-22, by his use of these words:

Like i said, let’s say your 100% right and preterism is 100% wrong. that still doesn’t change that FACT that preterism does NOT conflate the persecution of the saints in Matthew 24:9-10 with the days of wrath in luke 21:23. Even if Preterism is wrong, it does NOT teach that the persecution of the saints in Matthew 24:9-10 is the same event as the days of wrath in luke 21:23. That would be completely false to claim they do. That would be a strawman.

@DavidPT just what am I missing here? FOTG believes the persecution of the saints in Matthew 24:9-10 = the great tribulation (but preterism doesn’t believe this. Preterism believes Matthew 24:9-10 refers to the general persecution of the disciples, while Matthew 24:15 an onward refers to the Roman civil war and destruction of Jerusalem and the temple). Then, because preterism believes Luke 21:23 = the great tribulation of Matthew 24:21, FOTG claims that “see preterism conflates the persecution of the saints with the days of wrath”. This is known as a strong man argument.

For example, i as a partial preterist, believe the phrase in the OD “coming of the son of man on the clouds” is an allusion to the ascension of Christ to God. However, Premill does not. Premill believes the phrase in the OD “son of man coming on the clouds” refers to the 2nd coming. I then start an OP with the argument that premil conflates the ascension with the 2nd coming. Would this be an accurate argument that correctly represents premil?

 

[Zao is life]

For example, i as a partial preterist, believe the phrase in the OD “coming of the son of man on the clouds” is an allusion to the ascension of Christ to God. However, Premill does not. Premill believes the phrase in the OD “son of man coming on the clouds” refers to the 2nd coming. I then start an OP with the argument that premil conflates the ascension with the 2nd coming. Would this be an accurate argument that correctly represents premil?

If the Son of man coming on the clouds was indeed speaking about the ascension, then yes, Premils would be conflating it with the 2nd coming if Premils apply it to the 2nd coming instead of to the ascension.

See post #1 in this thread again. Tribulation (thlipsis) and Great Tribulation (megas thlipsis) are never used in reference to unbelievers in the New Testament except in Romans 2:9 and 2 Thessalonians 1:6. Aside from this each and every one of the long list of verses mentioning thlipsis and persecution is talking about the persecution of Jesus or the saints.

Besides this fact, the grammar in Matthew's gospel joins the megas thlipsis of verse 21 to the thlipsis introduced as taking place at the end of the Age in Matthew 24:9-10 - and your slicing Matthew's reference to the tribulation of the saints off at that point "just because" (just because of your eschatology) causes you to conflate the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus mentioned in Matthew 24:21 (first mentioned in verse 9) with the wrath (orge - not thlipsis) of God which came upon Jerusalem as mentioned in Luke 21:23.

So yes, you are conflating the two things.

 

[Zao is life]

The more I think about it, in my mind, the approach you take here is similar to the approach I took with Amils in the past, where they then decided I was misrepresenting their view. Except I wasn't. I was simply doing similar to what you are doing here. If this is supposed to be true, what they are concluding, then how could it be true in light of this or light of that? And this they decided I was misrepresenting their view when all I was doing was attempting to debunk their view. Which is what I basically see you doing in this thread. I guess I understand the dispute in question more than I initially realized.

Some of these same Amils I'm talking about, and you know who they are, though they have been MIA lately, if they were posting in this thread they too would be disagreeing with the OP since they too apply great tribulation per Matthew 24 to that of 70 AD and leading up to it. Except these Amils agree that the Discourse involves the 2nd coming in the end of this age, while Amils such as @claninja disagree that it does. Your OP specifically mentions Preterists, Partial-Preterists, and Pre-tribulationsists. These other Amils, the ones that agree the Discourse records the 2nd coming, what category do they fit in? BTW, there are also Premils who insist great tribulation per Matthew 24, this is pertaining to 70 AD.

What I find interesting about you in particular, it's usually interpreters that take the 70th week to be future still, being the ones that apply Matthew 24:15-21 to the end of this age rather than 70 AD. Except you don't take the 70th week to be future still. Even though I do, at least the last half anyway, I don't apply any of these things in a literal sense like Pretribbers do where they insist it involves a literal rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. I apply 2 Thessalonians 2:4 to the latter half of the 70th week, except I don't take 2 Thessalonians 2:4 in a literal sense. And since there are 2 comings involved, the first one involving what He accomplished on the cross, the 2nd one being when He returns to destroy the man of sin per the 2nd coming, I'm not seeing an issue here with interpreting Daniel 9:27 like I am. It still involves Christ from start to finish the fact there are 2 comings of Christ, not just one coming of Christ.

I understand why you apply the 42 months of Revelation 13:5 to the final 3.5 years of the 70th week of Daniel 9. It would make sense to me if it weren't for the fact that according to Daniel 9:26-27 the temple had to be destroyed.

So if you believe that the temple of the man of sin is going to be the New Testament Temple (the church), are you saying that the temple is going to be completely destroyed due to abominations? Goodbye New Jerusalem.

Or will the temple be defiled by the idol - the man of sin claiming to be God - in it?

And then once he (i.e the man of sin rather than the church, the body of Christ) has been destroyed by Christ at His return (the antitype of the Maccabees ousting Antiochus IV, removing his idol, and cleansing and reconsecrating the temple to God) will the New Testament Temple be destroyed, or cleansed and reconsecrated to God?

You can't have Daniel 9:26-27's destruction of the temple applying if you believe the 2nd half of Daniel 9:27 and 2 Thessalonians 2:4 go together, unless you have a physical temple in Jerusalem that can be destroyed.

So either Daniel 9:26-27 was fulfilled in 70 A.D, or the temple that the man of sin will appear in is a physical temple that is still to be rebuilt in Jerusalem - but if you believe this, then you have to also ignore the fact that the Greek never uses the word naos in reference to the temple in Jerusalem again following the verses talking about the tearing of the veil, and 2 Thessalonians 2:4 will have to be the only exception to this rule (see Post #2 in this thread).

If the Tabernacle of God mentioned in 2 Thess 2:4 is the Church, and Daniel 9:26-27 says very clearly both city and tabernacle will be destroyed, then it means it's the end of God's Temple, i.e the end of the Church. Goodbye New Jerusalem.

But if Daniel 9:26-27 refers to the actual city of Jerusalem and the actual temple in Jerusalem, but 2 Thessalonians 2:4 refers to the church, then it means that the New Testament Temple will not be destroyed - but once the man of sin has been destroyed by Christ, then it will be cleansed and reconsecrated to God - the forerunner to this being Antiochus IV and his idol in the temple.

Yes I think I may have also thought you were misrepresenting the Amil view by that approach, but now I realize what you were doing, so I apologize if I argued against your 'misrepresentation of Amil' at the time.

By the way, I know where those Amils you are talking about now post. Most of the people here - including the Prets and Partial Prets - are posting there too. Lots of names in that forum that you would recognize from this one. Some of these guys post in about 4 or 5 different forums.

One of the Amils you are talking about uses a different handle there - but you will most certainly recognize him by the content and wording of his long, copied and pasted posts. The other guy has a very similar handle there that you would recognize. If you ask me they went there to escape the Prets and Part Prets here, but I think that place may have also been 'invaded' now by the Prets and Part Prets, so ..

 

[DavidPT]

@DavidPT just what am I missing here? FOTG believes the persecution of the saints in Matthew 24:9-10 = the great tribulation (but preterism doesn’t believe this. Preterism believes Matthew 24:9-10 refers to the general persecution of the disciples, while Matthew 24:15 an onward refers to the Roman civil war and destruction of Jerusalem and the temple). Then, because preterism believes Luke 21:23 = the great tribulation of Matthew 24:21, FOTG claims that “see preterism conflates the persecution of the saints with the days of wrath”. This is known as a strong man argument.

Maybe that argument against Preterists should be dropped altogether? I tend to somewhat understand both sides' point here. Or at least I think I do.

Let's consider your side first. The first thing to note, not one interpreter, regardless what their position is, would be applying verse 9 to that of the wrath upon the Jews in 70 AD. And that includes Preterists. With that in mind I can see why you might see that as a straw man.

Let's now consider @Fullness of the Gentiles side. Via his perspective the fact he takes verse 9 to be involving the persecution of the church during great tribulation, and that if Preterists are applying great tribulation to that of the wrath on unbelieving Jews involving 70 AD, verse 9 alone, in his mind, proves Preterists are wrong to conclude that since great tribulation is involving those, and those like them, thet verse 9 is involving, not unbelieving Jews in 70 AD instead. So, by Preterists insisting great tribulation is involving 70 AD is to then logically conflate verse 9 with 70 AD if one is applying great tribulation to 70 AD, but that in reality, whether Preterists want to admit it or not, it is verse 9 that is applicable to great tribulation, not 70 AD.

It all boils down to there can only be one trump card. The one that is applying the great tribulation to the correct victims is the one holding the trump card in this case. Assuming one of these views is correct, obviously both views can't be correct then, which means someone has to be wrong. The one not holding the trump card is the one that is wrong. Except no one will admit that it is them that is not holding the trump card. Obviously, the one holding the trump card does not need to admit that. But it becomes a problem if both sides insist it is the other side not holding the trump card.

For example, i as a partial preterist, believe the phrase in the OD “coming of the son of man on the clouds” is an allusion to the ascension of Christ to God. However, Premill does not. Premill believes the phrase in the OD “son of man coming on the clouds” refers to the 2nd coming. I then start an OP with the argument that premil conflates the ascension with the 2nd coming. Would this be an accurate argument that correctly represents premil?

In this case you don't even have a valid argument against Premil to begin with since you are misapplying Matthew 24:30, if that is the verse you are referring to. But let's assume, for the sake of argument, you are interpreting Matthew 24:30 correctly, once again assuming that is the verse you are referring to, in that case, no that would not be an accurate argument that correctly represents premil since no premil, nor anyone for that matter, could somehow conflate the ascension with the 2nd coming in the end of this age. IOW, even if you are interpreting Matthew 24:30 correctly and that Premils aren't, this still doesn't equal Premils conflating the ascension with the 2nd coming since there is no logic to that no matter how you look at it. In the same way, even if Preterists are intepreting the great tribulation incorrectly, and even if they are applying it to the wrong victims, there is still no logic in anyone applying 70 AD to verse 9 since verse 9 has zero to do with 70 AD the same way the ascension has zero to do with the 2nd coming.