Poll: Is the Great Tribulation a part of the “Day of the Lord”?

claninja said:

then why wouldn’t you just insert a 2,000 year plus gap between the great tribulation of Daniel 12:1 and the waking of those to life In vs 2? That would be more logic and consistent than saying the great tribulation of Daniel 12:1 is different than the great tribulation of the OD.

Click to expand...

Why propose he does that since there couldn't possibly be a 2000 year gap between 'at that time' meant in Daniel 12:1 and the resurrection in verse 2?

Daniel 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.


Why would the text even bother mentioning a resurrection in the next verse if it is meaning 2000 years post that of the time meant in verse 1? How can--- and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book--not also involve this--And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life?

claninja said:

right, but this doesn’t explain the inconsistencies of stating Luke’s OD is a different then Matthew and mark’s OD.

the times of the gentiles trampling Jerusalem = 42 months according to revelation 11. IF Luke 21 is entirely future to us AND it parallels Matthew, the gentiles trampling Jerusalem for 42 months during the great tribulation until the times of the gentiles is fulfilled, followed by the coming of the son of man would rectify the “immediately after the tribulation of those days “ of matthews OD. That seems much more logical and consistent than claiming Luke’s OD is an entirely different event than matthews OD.

Click to expand...

In my view---and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled(Luke 21:24)--couldn't possibly be involving verse 20 at this stage. This is meaning because of 70 AD and after 70 AD, not prior to it or during it instead. And the following in that same verse proves it---and shall be led away captive into all nations--this involves post 70 AD from this point on.

Revelation 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.


We already know, or should know if we don't, this same 42 months is involving the same 42 months recorded in Revelation 13:5. And according to that chapter, it is the saints(the church) being persecuted and killed, not unbelieving Jews in the first century instead. Revelation 13 then tells me, these things, the temple recorded in Revelation 11:1, the holy city recorded in Revelation 11:2, are not meaning in a literal sense, since the literal city Jerusalem and it's temple is irrelevant to the church, not to mention, the 2nd temple was literally destroyed, yet it was already irrelevant to anyone once Christ died and rose, though the unbelieving Jews at the time saw it as still being relevant.

This same 42 months recorded in Revelation 11:2 and Revelation 13:5, I see applying to the great tribulation recorded in Matthew 24:21. And since I don't take Revelation 11:1-2 in a literal sense, and that I see it applying to Matthew 24:15-21, why would I apply fleeing to the mountains, etc, in Matthew 24 in the literal sense, which would mean I'm being inconsistent in that case?

Spiritual Jew said:

They do? Are you confusing me with being a futurist? I'm not really a futurist or a preterist. At least not in the sense that someone like you (a preterist) or DavidPT (a futurist) are. I thought futurists see Christ as coming immediately after the great tribulation, not 2,000 years later?

Click to expand...

The great tribulation is the 2,000 year long fulness of the Gentiles, NT church age. Jesus promised great tribulation to every single redeemed person, from the Cross until He returned. Those who endure such tribulation will be rewarded. Not just a single generation at the Second Coming.

I guess if you missed that tribulation, you won't have to worry about enduring, nor receiving a reward.

claninja said:

My apologies, I should have been more specific with my classification. You are correct, many futurists believe all of the OD is still future.

my argument was geared more towards your gap and I was too generic.

I’ll rephrase. Since you believe the great tribulation of the OD occurred in 66-70ad, and “those seeing the son of man coming in the clouds” and “the gathering of the elect” of the OD refers to the 2nd coming and bodily resurrection of the dead, respectively, some 2,000 plus years after said great tribulation, then why wouldn’t you just insert a 2,000 year plus gap between the great tribulation of Daniel 12:1 and the waking of those to life In vs 2? That would be more logic and consistent than saying the great tribulation of Daniel 12:1 is different than the great tribulation of the OD.

Click to expand...

That's what you think, but I disagree with that. So be it. Not worth discussing any further.

DavidPT said:

Daniel 12 proves, maybe not to you, but to some of the rest of us that the great tribulation recorded in Matthew 24:21 is meaning in the end of this age because a resurrection of the dead follows it.

Click to expand...

It can't prove that to me because I take Matthew 24:15-21 literally and can recognize it as something that already happened long ago. But, obviously, the resurrection of the dead has not yet happened. I'm 100% convinced of each of those things, so I need to interpret the surrounding verses accordingly in order to be consistent with my interpretations of those passages.

Either I can interpret this like Pretribbers do and think this involves unbelieving Jews in Jerusalem and a rebuilt temple, thus the fleeing to mountains is literal, or I can assume it's not literal since these things are involving the 21st century.

Click to expand...

Or you could interpret it as being parallel to Luke 21:20-24a, as I believe is very clearly the case. You are limiting your options too much just because you insist that Matthew 24:15-21 has to be speaking of the same event as Daniel 12:1-2. But, to me, one is talking about global tribulation and one is speaking of tribulation local to Jerusalem and the surrounding area.

Or I could ignore Daniel 12 altogether and act like what is recorded in that chapter, that none of it is meaning what Jesus was meaning in Matthew 24:15 when He mentioned Daniel the prophet, and an AOD, and then mentioned a time of trouble(great tribulation), the very same things Daniel 12 mentions.

Click to expand...

You are not required to conclude that Daniel 12:1-2 is the same event as Matthew 24:15-22. By doing this, you have forced yourself to come to the conclusion that Matthew 24:15-22 can't be taken literally even though you can't explain how it can be interpreted non-literally. I don't know how you can be content with that.

Just because I can't explain what it might look like if Jesus was not meaning in a literal sense, in regards to fleeing into mountains, etc, there are numerous things I can't explain in the NT, and what that might look like, if a literal sense is not meant. And I bet the same is true for you as well, and others also.

Click to expand...

But, you can't even come close to explaining what Matthew 24:15-22 could possibly mean in a non-literal sense. Does that not concern you?

Timtofly said:

The great tribulation is the 2,000 year long fulness of the Gentiles, NT church age. Jesus promised great tribulation to every single redeemed person, from the Cross until He returned. Those who endure such tribulation will be rewarded. Not just a single generation at the Second Coming.

I guess if you missed that tribulation, you won't have to worry about enduring, nor receiving a reward.

Click to expand...

I was referring to the typical futurist belief that Jesus will come immediately after a short time period in the future that they call the great tribulation. You are obviously not a typical futurist, so I was clearly not referring to your particular beliefs.

And, by the way, I have experienced my share of great tribulation in my life, so I know exactly what you're talking about in the sense of ongoing great tribulation for the past 2,000 years for all believers. That is not the understanding of the great tribulation that most futurists have, though.

DavidPT said:

Why propose he does that since there couldn't possibly be a 2000 year gap between 'at that time' meant in Daniel 12:1 and the resurrection in verse 2?'

Click to expand...

Right. It's pretty clear to me that it's saying verse 2 will happen "at that time" referenced in verse 1. I relate the resurrection of the ones who are resurrected to everlasting life directly to the reference in verse 1 to "thy people" being delivered. It seems to me that the way they are delivered is by way of being resurrected unto everlasting life. At least in terms of those who are dead at the time. Obviously, those who are alive at the time won't need to be resurrected from the dead.

claninja said:

sj does it with the olivet discourse, so for consistency’s sake, why wouldn’t he do it between Daniel 12:1 and Daniel 12:2?

Click to expand...

Because there's no indication whatsoever of a gap there, while I believe there is an indication of a gap between the great tribulation in the Olivet Discourse and the coming of the Son of man. Luke refers to that gap as "the times of the Gentiles". I see Matthew 24:23-26 as describing things that would happen after the great tribulation was over, not before or during it.

Spiritual Jew said:

Right. It's pretty clear to me that it's saying verse 2 will happen "at that time" referenced in verse 1. I relate the resurrection of the ones who are resurrected to everlasting life directly to the reference in verse 1 to "thy people" being delivered. It seems to me that the way they are delivered is by way of being resurrected unto everlasting life. At least in terms of those who are dead at the time. Obviously, those who are alive at the time won't need to be resurrected from the dead.

Click to expand...

You do realize Daniel 12 involves an AOD and is meaning during the time of trouble per verse 1, right? How is it that Daniel 12 can involve both an AOD and a time of trouble but not be meaning what Matthew 24:15-21 is involving? I thought the idea was to interpret Scripture with Scripture whenever possible?. If Matthew 24:15-21 and Mark 13:14-20 don't explain the AOD and time of trouble meant in Daniel 12, what NT Scriptures do?

DavidPT said:

You do realize Daniel 12 involves an AOD and is meaning during the time of trouble per verse 1, right? How is it that Daniel 12 can involve both an AOD and a time of trouble but not be meaning what Matthew 24:15-21 is involving? I thought the idea was to interpret Scripture with Scripture whenever possible?.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is a good approach to interpreting scripture, but in this case we can't rely on that. We're looking at two similar events here, one of which was local and one that is global. They undeniably have similarities but there are also differences. So, not every time that two passages have similarities are they referring to the same event. Most of the time, sure. But not every time.

If Matthew 24:15-21 and Mark 13:14-20 don't explain the AOD and time of trouble meant in Daniel 12, what NT Scriptures do?

Click to expand...

I believe Matthew 24:15-21 and Mark 13:14-20 relate to Daniel 9:26-27. I've already explained several times why a non-literal interpretation of Matthew 24:15-21 (Mark 13:14-20) doesn't work. And it's also clear to me that Matthew 24:15-21 and Mark 13:14-20 are parallel passages to Luke 21:20-24a, which you deny. Until you are able to give some kind of explanation for how Matthew 24:15-21 can be interpreted in a non-literal way, I am not seeing any reason to agree with you on that.

As far as NT scriptures relating to Daniel 12:1-2, that would include Matthew 24:9-14, Matthew 24:23-25:46, Mark 13:21-36, Luke 21:25-36, John 5:28-29, 1 Thess 4:13-5:11, 2 Thess 1:7-10, 2 Peter 3:10-12, Rev 19:11-21 and Rev 20:7-15. Basically, any passage relating to the second coming of Christ and the resurrection of the dead would be related to Daniel 12:1-2.

Spiritual Jew said:

They undeniably have similarities but there are also differences. So, not every time that two passages have similarities are they referring to the same event. Most of the time, sure. But not every time.

Click to expand...

Why can't one use that same argument in regards to what is recorded in Luke 21 and what is recorded in Matthew 24? In particular, what you said in the last sentence--- But not every time?

Spiritual Jew said:

As far as NT scriptures relating to Daniel 12:1-2, that would include Matthew 24:9-14, Matthew 24:23-25:46, Mark 13:21-36, Luke 21:25-36, John 5:28-29, 1 Thess 4:13-5:11, 2 Thess 1:7-10, 2 Peter 3:10-12, Rev 19:11-21 and Rev 20:7-15. Basically, any passage relating to the second coming of Christ and the resurrection of the dead would be related to Daniel 12:1-2.

Click to expand...

But what about the AOD recorded in Daniel 12:11? That is meaning during the time of verse 1 in Daniel 12. Which of these passages that you submitted here do you feel supports Daniel 12:1-2 in light of Daniel 12:11, though?

DavidPT said:

Why can't one use that same argument in regards to what is recorded in Luke 21 and what is recorded in Matthew 24? In particular, what you said in the last sentence--- But not every time?

Click to expand...

Because I can't see how Jesus would have said such similar things more than once during the Olivet Discourse. In your view He talked about those in Judea needing to flee to the mountains after seeing something more than once in the OD. And, in your view, He indicated that those in the city should leave at that point and no one should enter the city at that point more than once. And, in your view, He talked about great tribulaton/distress that would especially be a problem for pregnant women and nursing mothers more than once during the OD. I don't believe it makes any sense to think that He talked about those things more than once during the OD. Unless He was purposely trying to confuse everyone.

The only reason that Luke 21:20-24a has some differences to Matthew 24:15-21 and Mark 13:14-20 is because Luke was writing to a Gentile audience. They would not have been familiar with any prophecies in the book of Daniel, so it wouldn't make sense to tell them "when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation, spoken of through the prophet Daniel...". And it obviously wouldn't make sense to then say "let the reader understand" when none of Luke's Gentile audience would have understood what he was talking about. So, he spelled it out to them instead.

But what about the AOD recorded in Daniel 12:11? That is meaning during the time of verse 1 in Daniel 12. Which of these passages that you submitted here do you feel supports Daniel 12:1-2 in light of Daniel 12:11, though?

Click to expand...

I would say that would relate to what Paul wrote about in 2 Thess 2:1-12 if that relates directly to Daniel 12:1-2. Of course, that is not talking about a physical temple whereas Matthew 24:15-21 relates to the destruction of the physical temple buildings. Where else did Jesus answer the question about when the temple buildings would be destroyed if not in Matthew 24:15-21? To say that His answer isn't recorded in Matthew 24 or Mark 13 is not acceptable to me.

[

Muckah said:

I see no reason to view the temple of 2Thes. 2 as metaphorical. The only reason to associate it in that way is to fit one's theology.

Click to expand...

And I would say the only reason to think it's talking about a literal, physical temple building is to fit one's theology.

How could a future physical temple building possibly be something Paul would call "the temple of God"? When Paul referred to the temple of God in other verses, which temple was he referring to? I'll give you a hint. It wasn't a physical temple building.

Vines...
"(1) The "temple" mentioned in 2Th 2:4 (naos), as the seat of the Man of Sin, has been regarded in different ways. The weight of Scripture evidence is in favor of the view that it refers to a literal "temple" in Jerusalem, to be reconstructed in the future (cp. Dan 11:31; 12:11, with Mat 24:15). For a fuller examination of the passage, see Notes on Thessalonians, by Hogg and Vine, pp. 250-252."

I don't agree with Vines that the temple is "to be reconstructed in the future". There is an abomination that currently 'sits upon' God's holy place in Jerusalem and that temple, whether the Dome or Al-Aqsa Mosque, is where the anti-Christ will reveal himself and sufficient to fulfill all prophecies.

Click to expand...

Explain how such a temple could possibly quality to be called "the temple of God".