Preterism, both full & partial, are false.

[parousia70]

Jesus was repeating Himself to drive the message home. But for two different events,

If it's two different events, separated by thousands of years, why does Jesus include the destruction of the then standing temple they were looking at in both of them?

 

[rwb]

Christ warend His disciples that THEY would see it in their lifetimes. Yes.

Yes, this is true...however Christ did not limit great tribulation to their lifetimes only. Christ connects great tribulation to proclaiming the Gospel of the Kingdom as the time when great tribulation such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be, would be. So throughout the Gospel of the Kingdom age, the disciples of Christ can expect great tribulation. The end will not come until the Gospel of the Kingdom is preached unto all nations. So Christ did not have 70 AD in mind when He spoke these words to His disciples.

Matthew 24:14 (KJV) And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

 

[parousia70]

If you think only 2 million Jews dying is worse than 6 million Jews dying, your math is slightly off. .

What does Math have to do with it?

If 50 people are Killed instantly in an explosion, and 5 People are slowly tortured to death over 2 weeks, which group suffered "greater tribulation", the 50 or the 5?

Contrary to your assertion, body count does not equal greatness of trubulation suffered.

Jewish women slew, cooked and ate their own babies, the tribulation was so bad in the Roman Jewish War. How much tribulation would you have to suffer before you could bring yourself to slaughter, cook and eat your own baby Tim?

I know of no account showing that the tribulation was so bad that Jewish women killed, cooked and ate their own babies in WWII, do you?

 

[parousia70]

@Timtofly I would encourage you to Demonstrate how Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:2-18 are Parallel accounts of the Birth of Christ.

Show us the language in each of those passages that demonstrates they harmonize and are speaking of the same events.

 

[parousia70]

The end will not come until the Gospel of the Kingdom is preached unto all nations. So Christ did not have 70 AD in mind when He spoke these words to His disciples.

Matthew 24:14 (KJV) And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

I guess Paul, and the Holy Spirit who inspired him, didn't get that memo:

Colossians 1:5-6 because of the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, of which you heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel, 6 which has come to you, as it has also in all the world, and is bringing forth fruit, as it is also among you since the day you heard and knew the grace of God in truth;

Colossians 1:23 if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.

Romans 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

Romans 16:25-26 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began 26 but now has been made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures has been made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith;

Now, either you are correct, that this didn't happen in the 1st century, or Paul and the HS are correct that it did.

My Money is on Paul and the Holy Spirit.

 

[DavidPT]

If it's two different events, separated by thousands of years, why does Jesus include the destruction of the then standing temple they were looking at in both of them?

Why not if it involves 2 aspects of a temple. First the literal temple is destroyed. That's what Luke 21 records. And since there has to be a temple to fulfill 2 Thessalonians 2:4, we have a cpl of options here.

1) 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is meaning before the 2nd temple was destroyed, thus involves the 2nd temple..

2) 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is meaning after the 2nd temple was destroyed, thus involves a rebuilt 3rd temple.

3) 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is meaning after the 2nd temple was destroyed, but does not involve a literal temple.

I reject 1) and 2). That leaves option 3) being the best and only option.

The question is, how does one flee to the mountains if a literal temple in Jerusalem is not meant, and that the text states that those in Judea are to flee to the mountains?

Probably the same way one flees from the woman in Revelation 18 by coming out of her, but that this isn't actually involving fleeing from one geographical location to another geographical location.

 

[rwb]

I guess Paul, and the Holy Spirit who inspired him, didn't get that memo:

Colossians 1:5-6 because of the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, of which you heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel, 6 which has come to you, as it has also in all the world, and is bringing forth fruit, as it is also among you since the day you heard and knew the grace of God in truth;

Colossians 1:23 if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.

Romans 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

Romans 16:25-26 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began 26 but now has been made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures has been made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith;

Now, either you are correct, that this didn't happen in the 1st century, or Paul and the HS are correct that it did.

My Money is on Paul and the Holy Spirit.

Have you ever considered that Paul is using this specific terminology to prove Gentiles too have heard the Gospel? This is why Paul is very inclusively including Gentiles by saying "all nations", "the whole world" and "every creature under heaven". IOW salvation is no longer limited to one nation, the Jews, but is, since Christ going to every nation. The proclamation of the Gospel to Gentiles too indeed began to be sent unto all the nations of the whole world through the first century disciples. But the first century disciples were only the beginning of this prophesy, because many nations of the earth didn't come to exist until long after the first century disciples died. Yet the Gospel is still going out unto Gentiles throughout the whole world, proving great tribulation the disciples of Christ was not limited to first century Jewish disciples for Christ.

 

[parousia70]

Have you ever considered that Paul is using this specific terminology to prove Gentiles too have heard the Gospel? This is why Paul is very inclusively including Gentiles by saying "all nations", "the whole world" and "every creature under heaven". IOW salvation is no longer limited to one nation, the Jews, but is, since Christ going to every nation. The proclamation of the Gospel to Gentiles too indeed began to be sent unto all the nations of the whole world through the first century disciples. But the first century disciples were only the beginning of this prophesy, because many nations of the earth didn't come to exist until long after the first century disciples died. Yet the Gospel is still going out unto Gentiles throughout the whole world, proving great tribulation the disciples of Christ was not limited to first century Jewish disciples for Christ.

Jesus' specific command of "the gospel must be preached to all nations & every creature" was plainly fulfilled before the end of Paul's ministry. Paul even specifically says the fulfillment he mentions is the fulfillment of that very command of Jesus (Romans 15:26)

 

[rwb]

Jesus' specific command of "the gospel must be preached to all nations & every creature" was plainly fulfilled before the end of Paul's ministry. Paul even specifically says the fulfillment he mentions is the fulfillment of that very command of Jesus (Romans 15:26)

Yes the Gospel was preached to all nations & every creature, that means Gentiles as well as Jews from the first century had heard the Gospel. If it was only for them, and they alone appointed to great tribulation, why is the Gospel still be sent unto all the nations of the earth with great tribulation coming for many who believe? Did you mean to say Ro 15:26???

Romans 15:26 (KJV) For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem.

 

[Timtofly]

Since when does absense of evidence = evidence of absense?

You are the one comparing Scripture. That is your point. You claim Luke 21 has Jesus talking on the Mount of Olives. I asked where. There is literally no indication in that chapter that Jesus did not say the same things at the temple, that He later repeated to the disciples in private. But what is different is that at the temple He said to flee when they, at the temple, saw armies approaching. But in private, Jesus mentioned the AoD, and not the armies.

Matthew leaves out what Jesus said at the temple, and went with a private conversation on the mount.

You are combining the temple teaching with the Olivet teaching. But both went on during the days at the temple, and the evenings on the mount of Olives from Sunday to Tuesday morning. It was not just a one "3 hour" event. It was days in the temple, and evenings on the mount. And we only were told a small portion in the Gospels. Luke concentrated on the temple teaching. Matthew and Mark concentrated on the mount of Olives teaching. You are trying to combine several days into 1 singular point.

 

[Timtofly]

Jesus' specific command of "the gospel must be preached to all nations & every creature" was plainly fulfilled before the end of Paul's ministry. Paul even specifically says the fulfillment he mentions is the fulfillment of that very command of Jesus (Romans 15:26)

Except for the billions of humans born since Paul died. They did not go through time over the last 1900 years to today.

 

[Timtofly]

If it's two different events, separated by thousands of years, why does Jesus include the destruction of the then standing temple they were looking at in both of them?

The temple was not destroyed in 66AD when they fled from the approaching armies. That was a separate event from 70AD. 70AD was when the temple was destroyed. Both separate events are separate from the Second Coming, which has not happened yet.

 

[Timtofly]

What does Math have to do with it?

If 50 people are Killed instantly in an explosion, and 5 People are slowly tortured to death over 2 weeks, which group suffered "greater tribulation", the 50 or the 5?

Contrary to your assertion, body count does not equal greatness of trubulation suffered.

Jewish women slew, cooked and ate their own babies, the tribulation was so bad in the Roman Jewish War. How much tribulation would you have to suffer before you could bring yourself to slaughter, cook and eat your own baby Tim?

I know of no account showing that the tribulation was so bad that Jewish women killed, cooked and ate their own babies in WWII, do you?

When the alter call at your church is a recorded message saying to cut your head off, let me know if that is worse than eating your own flesh and blood.

The Jews in several German camps were documented as turning to cannibalism to survive. Along with the Germans forcing them to endure all types of diseases for medical experiments. The Romans did not do biological experimentation on the Jews.

Body count means nothing unless you place each soul that is suffering as important. Are 6 million souls more important than 2 million? If the Germans had showed grace to 4 million souls they would not have suffered. Can you convince those 4 million souls they should have suffered because it does not matter how many do suffer?

 

[Timtofly]

@Timtofly I would encourage you to Demonstrate how Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:2-18 are Parallel accounts of the Birth of Christ.

Show us the language in each of those passages that demonstrates they harmonize and are speaking of the same events.

What does the birth of Jesus have to do with the Second Coming? Yes Jesus was born. Do you deny that fact?

 

[parousia70]

What does the birth of Jesus have to do with the Second Coming? Yes Jesus was born. Do you deny that fact?

The subject of both passages, even though they contain different details, is the birth of Christ. They are parallel.

Likewise, in Matthew 24 and Luke 21 the subject is the destruction of the temple even though they contain different details. They too are parallel.

Yes the temple was destroyed, on time, as prophesied in Matt, Luke and Mark.

Do you to deny that fact?

 

[Timtofly]

The subject of both passages, even though they contain different details, is the birth of Christ. They are parallel.

Likewise, in Matthew 24 and Luke 21 the subject is the destruction of the temple even though they contain different details. They too are parallel.

Yes the temple was destroyed, on time, as prophesied in Matt, Luke and Mark.

Do you to deny that fact?

Jesus warned those at the temple of destruction of the temple.

Jesus warned the church in private of the AoD at the Second Coming. Both events made it into the Gospels.

 

[parousia70]

Jesus warned those at the temple of destruction of the temple.

Jesus warned the church in private of the AoD at the Second Coming. Both events made it into the Gospels.

And when the church in private asked Jesus when the temple would be destroyed, Is it your position that he never answered that question to them then?
That He simply left His disciples to guess which question He was answering?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

A reader who reads both Matthew and Revelation should know that the AoD is set up by Satan and not an event in 70AD.

I completely disagree. What is this based on?

Luke 21 was still Jesus talking at the temple to a vast audience.

How are you coming to this conclusion?

Many that day remembered Jesus' words. They would not have heard nor remembered what was said in private to the disciples on the mount of Olives camp site they spent the night at. This in the temple and on the mount happened Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday morning, several days, so there was a lot more said both places than what was written down.

Where are you getting this from?

"And in the day time he was teaching in the temple; and at night he went out, and abode in the mount that is called the mount of Olives. And all the people came early in the morning to him in the temple, for to hear him."

Seems Luke never even mentioned what was said on the mount of Olives, because he never separated what was said at the temple, with what was later said on the mount of Olives. Not even the same questions were asked in Luke's gospel.

Just because Luke didn't spell it out as to what was said when doesn't mean that Jesus had to still be at the temple when He said what is recorded after Luke 21:6. A missing detail does not mean that it's a completely different discourse. Obviously, Mark 13 doesn't have all the same details as Matthew 24, but you have no trouble discerning that Mark 13 is the same Olivet Discourse as Matthew 24.

You say that Luke didn't record the questions the same as Matthew, as if that's evidence that they weren't recording the same discourse. So, do you think Mark 13 is an entirely different discourse from Matthew 24 as well since the questions are not recorded the same in Mark 13 as they are in Matthew 24, either? The difference is wording is simply due to them being 3 different people. It doesn't mean they all wrote about a different discourse.

Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 all talk about the disciples marveling at the temple buildings with Jesus then telling them that the temple buildings would be destroyed with no stone left upon another. Do you think that happened more than once? As if they would have forgotten that Jesus already told them that the temple buildings would be destroyed. Trust me, that isn't something they would have forgotten. And in each case (in Matt 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21) Jesus telling them that the temple buildings would be destroyed is followed up by the disciples asking Jesus when that would happen. Again, did that happen twice that they asked Him when that would happen? Of course not. So, what you're saying here makes no sense.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Since when does absense of evidence = evidence of absense?

Exactly. There are also some details given in Matthew 24 that aren't found in Mark 13, but you don't see him concluding that Mark 13 and Matthew 24 are different discourses like he does with Matthew 24 and Luke 21. It's clear to me that doctrinal bias is the reason that he thinks that Matthew 24 and Luke 21 are not the same discourse.

 

[claninja]

I reject 1) and 2). That leaves option 3) being the best and only option.

that’s because it’s the only option that doesn’t contradict your presupposition, not necessarily the best option.

A.) looking at 2 Thessalonians 2:

1.) Paul said the restraining of the “revealing” of the man of sin was occurring in the first century before the temple fell. What’s more, Paul’s audience knew what was “now restraining” before the temple fell.

2 Thessalonians 2:6 6And you know what is now restraining, so that he may be revealed at the proper time.

2.) lawlessness was already active in the first century before the temple fell.

2 Thessalonians 2:7 7For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work,

3.) the man of sin’s presence was existing (present tense verb) by the works of Satan in the first century before the temple fell.

2 Thessalonians 2:9 9Whose presence of is according to the works of Satan, with every kind of power, sign, and false wonder,

5.) “is sending” is also present tense. More evidence that this about the first century, especially considering lawlessness was already at work before the temple fell.

2 Thessalonians 2:11 11Therefore God is sending them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false,

B.) Additionally, let’s add some time statements:

1.) Paul said the “end of the ages” had come upon the first century audience before the temple fell

1 Corinthians 10:11 11Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come.

2.) the author of Hebrews (maybe Paul) said Christ was coming “in a little while” and “without delay”, before the temple fell

Hebrews 10:37 37For, “Yet a little while,
and the coming one will come and will not delay;

3.) Peter said the end of all things had drawn near before the temple fell

1 peter 4:7 7The end of all things is at hand; therefore be self-controlled and sober-minded for the sake of your prayers.

4.) John said it was the last hour, before the temple fell.

1 john 2:18 18Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come.

5.) James said the coming of the Lord had drawn near, before the temple fell

James 5:8 be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand.

SO, when we consider the time statements of the apostles in regards to the coming of Christ ( “in a little while” , “without delay” , “at hand”, “end of the ages”, “last hour”, etc…) all before the temple fell, AND Paul declaring that man of sin’s “revealing” was being restrained before the temple fell, lawlessness was already at work before the temple fell, the man of sin’s presence was existing by the works of Satan before the temple fell, and God was already sending a strong delusion before the temple fell, WHY would Paul’s audience understand your options 2 or 3 as the best option?