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

[claninja]

@DavidPT

Barnes on matthew 24:21
There shall be great tribulation - The word "tribulation" means calamity or "suffering." Luke Luk 21:24 has specified in what this tribulation would consist: "They shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations, and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles shall be fulfilled." That is, until the time allotted for the Gentiles "to do it" shall be fully accomplished, or as long as God is pleased to suffer them to do it.

Ellicot on Matthew 24:21
Such as was not since the beginning . . .—The words come from Daniel 12:1. One who reads the narrative of Josephus will hardly hesitate to adopt his language, “that all miseries that had been known from the beginning of the world fell short” of those of the siege of the Holy City (Wars, v. 13, §§ 4, 5). Other sieges may have witnessed, before and since, scenes of physical wretchedness equally appalling, but nothing that history records offers anything parallel to the alternations of fanatic hope and frenzied despair that attended the breaking up of the faith and polity of Israel.

 

[Zao is life]

As to the vials of wrath, I tend to think Christ bodily returns during or following the 7th vial. And since there can't be a resurrection of the dead(1 Thessalonians 4:13-17) until He bodily returns first, the first vial would be meaning before 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 is fulfilled.

I agree, which is why I can't see how the saints won't be in the world when the 1st, 2nd, 3rd .. up to the 6th vials are being poured out.

God's people were in Egypt while the Egyptians were experiencing the plagues too. And there were two witnesses bringing plagues upon Egypt (Moses & Aaron). God's people were delivered through the Red Sea on the same day that Pharaoh's armies were destroyed in the same sea.

So I agree with all of this:

Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Luke 21:25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

What is recorded in Luke 21:25-26 appears to be involving what Matthew 24:29 is involving immediately after the tribulation of those days. And that this is where I see the vials of wrath fitting, and that this is prior to the bodily coming recorded in verse 30 in Matthew 24 and verse 27 in Luke 21.

But Daniel 12:11 is talking about the daily sacrifice being taken away. @DavidPT What daily sacrifice is Daniel talking about?

 

[claninja]

@DavidPT and @Fullness of the Gentiles

Any thoughts on “when therefore” in Matthew 24:15? Why wouldn’t the “therefore” connect THE END found in vs 14 with the great tribulation instead of the persecution of the disciples in Matthew 24:9-10?

Matthew 24:14-15
14And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

15“So when therefore you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),

 

[Zao is life]

Oh good, you’ve finally changed your argument to something that’s not a strawman. Before you falsely said prets conflate Matthew 24:9 with Luke 21:23, but now you’ve changed the argument correctly to prets conflating Matthew 24:21 with Luke 21:23. Thanks

I have not changed anything I said earlier.

There's no misrepresentation on my part because all I've said is that Prets and Part Prets and Pre-tribs all have the great tribulation (Matthew 24:21-22) conflated with God's wrath - you with the wrath that came upon Jerusalem in 70 A.D, and pre-tribs with the wrath of God still to come upon the world. And I've given my solid, scriptural reasons for saying so, and I've said that the only reason you can continue to conflate the two, is because you have divorced the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus in Matthew 24:9-10 from the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus in Matthew 24:21-22 and Matthew 24:29.

@claninja You keep showing yourself up misrepresenting what I've said. I can only hope that repeatedly misrepresenting what I've said when I have not changed anything, is not ensuring you're representing yourself well by misrepresenting what I've repeatedly said.

 

[Zao is life]

good I’m glad you agree there is no serious scholarship that agrees with your own personal unique interpretation.

What's the difference between scholarship and "SERIOUS" scholarship may I ask? Are some scholars like really, really serious people while others are just sort of students of the Bible?

@claninja Which of the scholars are or were God, or Gods who understood everything and might never have changed their minds? Only your "SERIOUS" scholars. or all of them? Do you believe the scholars were God or were Gods, claninja?

 

[claninja]

I have not changed anything I said earlier.

There's no misrepresentation on my part because all I've said is that Prets and Part Prets and Pre-tribs all have the great tribulation (Matthew 24:21-22) conflated with God's wrath - you with the wrath that came upon Jerusalem in 70 A.D, and pre-tribs with the wrath of God still to come upon the world. And I've given my solid, scriptural reasons for saying so, and I've said that the only reason you can continue to conflate the two, is because you have divorced the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus in Matthew 24:9-10 from the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus in Matthew 24:21-22 and Matthew 24:29.

@claninja You keep showing yourself up misrepresenting what I've said. I can only hope that repeatedly misrepresenting what I've said when I have not changed anything, is not ensuring you're representing yourself well by misrepresenting what I've repeatedly said.

I’m glad you’ve come to the correct understanding that prets conflate great tribulation of Matthew 24:21 and days of vengeance and wrath in luke 21:20-24, and divorce this from the persecution of the saints as found in Matthew 24:9-10 and Luke 21:12-19. You appear to no longer be including vs 9 of Matthew In your argument. So thanks again for that correction of limiting it to 20-21.


So on to your “therefore” argument. Why wouldn’t “therefore” in vs 15 connect to “the end” in Vs 14 of Matthew? Or does it?

 

[DavidPT]

@DavidPT and @Fullness of the Gentiles

Any thoughts on “when therefore” in Matthew 24:15? Why wouldn’t the “therefore” connect THE END found in vs 14 with the great tribulation instead of the persecution of the disciples in Matthew 24:9-10?

Matthew 24:14-15
14And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

15“So when therefore you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),

and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?(Matthew 24:3)

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(Matthew 24:14)


Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand(Matthew 24:3)

In The book of Daniel it mentions the time of the end. Which could mean that the end meant in verse 14 above, it is not meaning the literal end of this age at this point, it is meaning the time of the end, where at the end of that leads to the literal end of this age. I'm not necessarily dogmatic about that since I could be wrong to apply the end meant in verse 14 in that manner. Yet, I could be right, too. Or at least on the right track if nothing else. Who knows. So, anyway, assuming I might be right, the reason for the 'therefore' in verse 15 is to signify that this is the sign that we are in the time of the end that leads to the literal end of this age.

Which could mean Matthew 24:15-21 is a time for testing those that have accepted the gospel. Do they remain faithful to the end, meaning unto the end of their life, or unto the 2nd coming, depending on which happens first in their case? Or do they fall away and follow the beast instead, since, IMO, Matthew 24:15-21 is involving the 42 month reign of the beast?

I guess what I'm basically proposing here, once Matthew 24:15 begins, everyone that is going to be saved, they are already saved prior to this. Therefore, salvation is no longer an option at this point. And if so, that kills two birds with one stone, so to speak. It proves that Preterists are wrong to apply Matthew 24:15-26 to the first century and 70 AD since salvation has still been an option after that. It may not have still been an option during 70 AD though, since at that point in time it was too late to change one's mind once the city was being attacked and destroyed.

And it proves that Pretrib is not Biblical, not that most of us don't already know that to begin with, since their view relies on the fact that ppl are still being saved after the church is allegedly removed.

Yet, one can lose their salvation during this period of time(the falling away--2 Thessalonians 2:3), though. Of course, anyone who disagrees that NOSAS is Biblical is not even going to entertain this as a possibility, no doubt.

 

[claninja]

Ah yes, the classic ad hominem.

In The book of Daniel it mentions the time of the end. Which could mean that the end meant in verse 14 above, it is not meaning the literal end of this age at this point, it is meaning the time of the end, where at the end of that leads to the literal end of this age. I'm not necessarily dogmatic about that since I could be wrong to apply the end meant in verse 14 in that manner. Yet, I could be right, too. Or at least on the right track if nothing else. Who knows. So, anyway, assuming I might be right, the reason for the 'therefore' in verse 15 is to signify that this is the sign that we are in the time of the end that leads to the literal end of this age.

So, at least part of the OD has to be related to the destruction of the temple, due to the disciples’ first question: “when will these things be?”

So where would you draw the line for “end of the age” vs first century?

Which could mean Matthew 24:15-21 is a time for testing those that have accepted the gospel. Do they remain faithful to the end, meaning unto the end of their life, or unto the 2nd coming, depending on which happens first in their case? Or do they fall away and follow the beast instead, since, IMO, Matthew 24:15-21 is involving the 42 month reign of the beast?

Matthew 24:15-21 is a time for fleeing to the mountains of judea in order to escape and hoping that one isn’t pregnant/nursing nor that it’s a sabbath.

I would agree that the beast’s 42 month authority is during Matthew 24:15-21. But as a pret, I would argue it is the 42 months of Jerusalem being trampled down by the nations (luke 21:20-24, revelation 11:2), which coincides with the beasts authority to destroy the harlot, who, Imho, is apostate Israel.

5 heads of the beast had fallen, and one “Is” when revelation was written. So when do you place the 42 months if 5 have fallen and one is?

 

[Zao is life]

good I’m glad you agree there is no serious scholarship that agrees with your own personal unique interpretation.

In answer to your reference to "serious" scholars and their interpretations (as opposed to "not so serious" scholars?), if you want to do a thread on the interpretations of the Olivet Discourse by "serious" scholars, you're welcome to do so. But from the start, this has not been what this thread is about.

I’m glad you’ve come to the correct understanding that prets conflate great tribulation of Matthew 24:21 and days of vengeance and wrath in luke 21:20-24, and divorce this from the persecution of the saints as found in Matthew 24:9-10 and Luke 21:12-19.

Yes, I agree that by divorcing Matthew 24:9-10 from Matthew 24:15-22 though the two belong together, Prets and Part Prets conflate the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus mentioned in the above two verses with the wrath of God that came upon Jerusalem mentioned in Luke 21:23. You are correct, that is what I said, repeatedly.

You have no biblical basis for any of your arguments until you answer the two questions which you have thus far failed to answer:

Based on the facts regarding the New Testament's association with the Greek word thlipsis (tribulation) (right-click and open in a New Tab) and the facts regarding the New Testament's association with the word naos (the holy place) following the tearing of the veil in the temple, can you:

1. Give us a reason why, in your opinion, the Greek word thlipsis (tribulation) is referring to the wrath of God that came upon Jerusalem in 70 A.D when the word thlipsis is used in Matthew 24:21, but not when the same word is used in Matthew 24:9?

2. Give us a reason, in your opinion, why even though the New Testament only associates the church and the temple in heaven with the Greek word naos (the holy place) following the tearing of the veil in the temple, why the building in Jerusalem that was destroyed circa 37-40 years after the tearing of the veil, would be called the holy place in Matthew 24:15?

Your silence on this has been deafening. It stands out and screams in-between all your other assertions in each and every post you make, because by your silence you are making it obvious that you cannot answer the above two questions, because you have no answer.

So, at least part of the OD has to be related to the destruction of the temple, due to the disciples’ first question: “when will these things be?”

So where would you draw the line for “end of the age” vs first century?

Jesus never told them when the temple would be destroyed. The assertion you are making by the above question makes out like Jesus said, "Oh, in 70 A.D".

There were no chapter or verse divisions in the text of any part of the Bible until chapter and verse divisions were inserted in 1227 A,D, but the context tells us what belongs where, so it's obvious by the context where to "draw the line":

Jesus was standing in the temple courtyard when spoke about the destruction of the temple, speaking to the scribes and Pharisees.

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

Then He came out of the temple, and once outside, His disciples famously pointed out the magnificence of the temple buildings (that Jesus had just told the scribes and Pharisees was going to be destroyed); and Matthew 24:1-2 records the fact that when Jesus came out of the temple, He repeated to His disciples what He had just told the Pharisees - and this agrees with what Daniel 9:26-27 said about the destruction of city and sanctuary after Messiah came.

NEW LOCATION, NEW AUDIENCE, NEW CONTEXT

Then Jesus walked down the mountain, and crossed through the Kidron Valley to the Mount of Olives opposite the Temple Mount, walked to the top, and sat down on the Mount of Olives. His audience was now lo longer the scribes and Pharisees, but His disciples.

Once having reached the top of the Mount of Olives on the same day, the disciples asked Him:

1. When the destruction of the temple would come; and
2. What would be the sign of His return and of the end of the Age.

The disciples had no way of knowing at the time that there would be a very long gap between the destruction of the city and the temple and the Lord's return, and true to form, Jesus did not correct their question. He simply answered it, not telling them that they had in fact asked two questions.

But after Matthew 24:1-2 we do not see Jesus repeating what He had already told the disciples about the destruction of the temple, or telling them when it's destruction would come (we know from the New Testament they had no idea it would come in 70 A.D, or when it would come).

So Jesus did not answer the first part of their question. He instead gave them a sign - and the only place this sign is recorded, is in Luke 21:20-23. It's not recorded in Matthew.

Tell us, claninja (since you seem to know), where did Jesus answer them as to when the temple in Jerusalem would be destroyed? (I'm not asking about the sign He gave them which is recorded in Luke 21:20-23 - I'm asking where we read that Jesus told them when it would come?

The text that follows in Matthew 24:3-31 makes it obvious to anyone who understands plain English that Matthew only records that Jesus instead answered the second part of their question, and He immediately launched into telling them about the tribulation THEY (HIs disciples) would experience.

Whereas Matthew 24:1-2 pertains to what Jesus had been saying to the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23:13-39, Matthew 24:15 uses the word ".. Therefore ..", implying that it pertains to the tribulation of the disciples that Jesus began to talk about in Matthew 24:9 (at least to those who understand the plain English translated from the plain Greek);

and the words "all nations" in Matthew 24:14 and Matthew 24:9 tells us (very clearly) that Matthew 24:15 does not pertain to what Jesus had said about the destruction of the city and temple (Matthew 23:37 through Matthew 24:1-2). This was a different context, and Jesus was speaking to a different audience:

Location: The Mount of olives.
Audience: The disciples of Jesus.
Subject: The tribulation the disciples of Jesus would experience.

The Greek words thlipsis and megas thlipsis, plus the grammar of Matthew 24:9-31 plus the surrounding context of Matthew 24:15 implies that "the holy place" being mentioned there is not referring once again to the physical temple structure in Jerusalem, which Jesus had earlier told the scribes and Pharisees was going to be destroyed, but to a church that had begun to experience tribulation for the sake of the name of Christ (Matthew 24:9). (at least to those who understand the plain English translated from the plain Greek).

But Prets, Part-Prets, and Pre-Tribs are very busily ensuring that many saints (whoever is fooled by this theology) are lulled into a false sense of security, falsely asserting and convincing many that there will be no great tribulation experienced by the saints before the return of Christ, and making the false claim that "the great tribulation" instead refers to the wrath of God that is to come upon someone else, or that came upon someone else

- and in the case of Prets and Part-Prets, all the while, they do exactly the same that the scribes and Pharisees did which is recorded in Matthew 23 (i.e they continuously point a finger at a convenient group, not considering their own sins):

Matthew 23
29 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets, and decorate the tombs of the righteous,
30 and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
31 Therefore you are witnesses to yourselves, that you are the sons of those who killed the prophets;
32 and you fill up the measure of your fathers.

That's an example at pointing a finger and saying, "We would not have done what they did", yet many Christians gleefully keep pointing a finger at what they (the scribes and Pharaisees) did.

The harlot of the Revelation is referring to the harlot part of New Testament Israel, not Old Testament Israel.

So please, claninja, answer these two questions, and stop side-stepping them, producing red herring after red herring instead of answering them:

Based on the facts regarding the New Testament's association with the Greek word thlipsis (tribulation) (right-click and open in a New Tab) and the facts regarding the New Testament's association with the word naos (the holy place) following the tearing of the veil in the temple, can you:

1. Give us a reason why, in your opinion, the Greek word thlipsis (tribulation) is referring to the wrath of God that came upon Jerusalem in 70 A.D when the word thlipsis is used in Matthew 24:21, but not when the same word is used in Matthew 24:9?

2. Give us a reason, in your opinion, why even though the New Testament only associates the church and the temple in heaven with the Greek word naos (the holy place) following the tearing of the veil in the temple, why the building in Jerusalem that was destroyed circa 37-40 years after the tearing of the veil, would still be called the holy place in Matthew 24:15?

If you fail yet again to answer both questions based on the facts listed in Post #1 and Post #2 in this thread, I will not respond to any more of your lost in the Preterist and Partial Preterist fields posts or questions.

 

[DavidPT]

So where would you draw the line for “end of the age” vs first century?

In hindsight, the fact we are still here almost 2000 years later, the end of the age couldn't possibly pertain to the first century even if those living in the first century might have thought the end of the age would or could happen in their lifetime. Even today, 2000 years later, some of us think the end of age can happen in our lifetime. And I'm assuming the same for other generations throughout the past 2000 years, that some of them too thought the end of the age could happen in their lifetime. But then again, you being a Preterist, you might be thinking the end of the world in the Discourse is not even being used in the sense that it is involving the literal end of this age to begin with, thus it is debatable that it is meaning in a literal sense, as in the literal end of this age.

But the question is, per my perspective, pertaining to Matthew 24:14, what end was Jesus meaning? The literal end of this age, or the time of the end that leads to the literal end of this age? The fact the next verse is not meaning the literal end of this age at this point, but in my view it is what precedes the literal end of this age, thus leads to the literal end of this age, that proved by Matthew 24:30-31, for one, maybe He is meaning both when He says then comes the end.

As to the end of the age meant in Matthew 24:3, by comparing with other passages involving this subject, it is apparent that the end of the world can't be involving the first century the fact none of the following(Meaning Matthew 13 below) has been fulfilled yet, and that we are all still here almost 2000 years later.

Matthew 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end(sunteleia) of the world(aion)?

Compare with.

Matthew 13:38 The field is the world(kosmos) ; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end(sunteleia) of the world(aion) ; and the reapers are the angels.
40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end(sunteleia) of this world(aion).
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

The first thing to note is that 'world' in verse 38 is 'kosmos' while 'world' in verse 39 and 40 is 'aion'.

One might argue, what about Hebrews 9:26, though? Doesn't that verse place the end of the world in the first century?

Hebrews 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world(kosmos) : but now once in the end(sunteleia) of the world(aion) hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Here's the issue, though. Both Matthew 13:39-40 and Hebrews 9:26 involve the end(sunteleia) of the world(aion). Yet, it is obvious that the latter can't be meaning the same time period the former is involving. Which means, as pertaining to Matthew 24:3 and the end(sunteleia) of the world(aion) recorded in that verse, how should we assume the disciples were applying that? Like what is recorded in Matthew 13:39-40 or like what is recorded in Hebrews 9:26? IOW, would they be thinking, the fact that He hasn't even died at that point, that when He does die by the sacrifice of Himself, that that equals the end of this age meant in Matthew 24:3?

As to us, we obviously know Hebrews 9:26 did not result in the literal end of this age at the time, the fact we are all still here almost 2000 years later. As to the disciples per Matthew 24:3, they couldn't possibly have been thinking along the lines pertaining to the end of the world used in a passage like it used in Hebrews 9:26, but had to have been thinking along the lines like how the end of the world is used in a passage like Matthew 13:39-40. And the way Jesus addressed their questions throughout the Discourse proves it since not one thing He said is involving anything pertaining to Hebrews 9:26. Even though that too involves the end(sunteleia) of the world(aion), it involves the sacrifice of Himself, while nothing recorded in the entire Discourse is involving the sacrifice of Himself. Therefore, the end of the world per Matthew 24:3 fits a context involving Matthew 13:38-42, not a context involving Hebrews 9:26.

 

[DavidPT]

I would agree that the beast’s 42 month authority is during Matthew 24:15-21. But as a pret, I would argue it is the 42 months of Jerusalem being trampled down by the nations (luke 21:20-24, revelation 11:2), which coincides with the beasts authority to destroy the harlot, who, Imho, is apostate Israel.

As to Luke 21:20-24, I tend to reason it like such.

Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Everything involving verses 20-23 are meaning up unto 70 AD. As to verse 24, I'll place it like such.

A) And they shall fall by the edge of the sword

B) and shall be led away captive into all nations

C) and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

A) would be because of verses 20-23, yet could also be because of the folowing.

Revelation 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

B) would also be because of verses 20-23, yet could also be because of the folowing.

Revelation 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

What we need to keep in mind here, this part pertaining to Revelation 13:10 proves this is not related to what happened to unbelieving Jews in 70 AD and leading up to it---Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

As to C), the fact we are told Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. And that if once Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD, but that the times of the Gentiles still continued, obviously then, we can't apply this part in the literal sense, that is literally involving the literal city Jerusalem. This is where Revelation 11:2 helps us out here.

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.

Obviously, or at least to me anyway, this 42 months in question, it is pertaining to the same 42 months that Revelation 13:5 is pertaining to.

Revelation 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.
6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.
7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

And note what some of this 42 month reign pertains to. It pertains to---there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies.
It pertains to---it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them. It pertains to---power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Now compare any and all of that involving the fate of unbelieving Jews in 70 AD. Not even remotely similar. Especially in regards to worshiping the beast.

Therefore, I take C) above to not be involving verses 20-23 since I take C) to be involving Revelation 11:2, and that I take Revelation 13:5 to be involving Revelalation 11:2, and that I take neither Revelation 11:2 nor Revelation 13:5 to be involving Luke 21:20-23.

5 heads of the beast had fallen, and one “Is” when revelation was written. So when do you place the 42 months if 5 have fallen and one is?

The fact that verse also says---and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space--it is then meaning when he cometh, that it apparently is meaning this---shall ascend out of the bottomless pit(Revelation 11:8). And that this short space he must continue, it is apparently meaning this 42 months in question. Assuming this scenario, the question then is, when does the beast ascend out of the pit? One thing we know, it is future to that of when John saw these visions.

The way I basically reason some of these things, up unto 70 AD everything in the Discourse is pertaining to the literal sense. Once that is fulfilled, it then shifts gears and is no longer involving the literal sense. Meaning in regards to a city and temple. We have to factor in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and that that is involving the temple of God. And that if it is meaning after the 2nd temple has been destroyed, we have at least two options. Either we can not treat it in the literal sense, as in it is involving a literal temple in a literal city on earth. Or we could treat it like Pretribbers and Dispensationists do, thus in a literal sense, we can assume a literal brick and mortar temple gets rebuilt in the literal city of Jerusalem in order that this verse can be fulfilled.

You OTOH, apparently have a different solution. It is meaning a literal temple, that it is meaning before the 2nd one was destroyed. Except, even that can't work, since not one single thing recorded in 2 Thessalonians 2 supports that.

 

[Zao is life]

As to Luke 21:20-24, I tend to reason it like such.

Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Everything involving verses 20-23 are meaning up unto 70 AD. As to verse 24, I'll place it like such.

A) And they shall fall by the edge of the sword

B) and shall be led away captive into all nations

C) and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

A) would be because of verses 20-23, yet could also be because of the folowing.

Revelation 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

B) would also be because of verses 20-23, yet could also be because of the folowing.

Revelation 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

What we need to keep in mind here, this part pertaining to Revelation 13:10 proves this is not related to what happened to unbelieving Jews in 70 AD and leading up to it---Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

As to C), the fact we are told Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. And that if once Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD, but that the times of the Gentiles still continued, obviously then, we can't apply this part in the literal sense, that is literally involving the literal city Jerusalem. This is where Revelation 11:2 helps us out here.

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.

Obviously, or at least to me anyway, this 42 months in question, it is pertaining to the same 42 months that Revelation 13:5 is pertaining to.

Revelation 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.
6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.
7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

And note what some of this 42 month reign pertains to. It pertains to---there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies.
It pertains to---it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them. It pertains to---power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Now compare any and all of that involving the fate of unbelieving Jews in 70 AD. Not even remotely similar. Especially in regards to worshiping the beast.

Therefore, I take C) above to not be involving verses 20-23 since I take C) to be involving Revelation 11:2, and that I take Revelation 13:5 to be involving Revelalation 11:2, and that I take neither Revelation 11:2 nor Revelation 13:5 to be involving Luke 21:20-23.





The fact that verse also says---and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space--it is then meaning when he cometh, that it apparently is meaning this---shall ascend out of the bottomless pit(Revelation 11:8). And that this short space he must continue, it is apparently meaning this 42 months in question. Assuming this scenario, the question then is, when does the beast ascend out of the pit? One thing we know, it is future to that of when John saw these visions.

The way I basically reason some of these things, up unto 70 AD everything in the Discourse is pertaining to the literal sense. Once that is fulfilled, it then shifts gears and is no longer involving the literal sense. Meaning in regards to a city and temple. We have to factor in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and that that is involving the temple of God. And that if it is meaning after the 2nd temple has been destroyed, we have at least two options. Either we can not treat it in the literal sense, as in it is involving a literal temple in a literal city on earth. Or we could treat it like Pretribbers and Dispensationists do, thus in a literal sense, we can assume a literal brick and mortar temple gets rebuilt in the literal city of Jerusalem in order that this verse can be fulfilled.

You OTOH, apparently have a different solution. It is meaning a literal temple, that it is meaning before the 2nd one was destroyed. Except, even that can't work, since not one single thing recorded in 2 Thessalonians 2 supports that.

Luke 21
1 Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,
2 like the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning.
3 So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
4 so that you may know for certain the things you were taught.

Luke wasn't an eyewitness, and it must have been very difficult for him to know from the many interviews with eyewitnesses which he must have undertaken, what the Lord said first, what He said after that, and what He said after that.

Luke is mixing two subjects together: The persecution of the saints followed by their redemption at the end of the Age & coming of Christ on one hand, and the wrath of God coming upon Jerusalem on the other.

But Matthew says nothing about wrath.

So some look only at the similarities in the synoptic gospel accounts of the Olivet Discourse - but they ignore the differences and the one glaring contradiction, and instead pretend that there is no contradiction:

Luke makes no mention of an abomination of desolation in the holy place where he mentions God's wrath that was to come upon Jerusalem.

Matthew makes no mention of God's wrath, only of the tribulation of the disciples.

Matthew has the Lord telling those who see the abomination of desolation in the holy place to flee Judea, but Luke has the Lord telling them to flee Judea when they see armies gather around Jerusalem.

23 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing their babies in those days! For there will be great distress on the earth and wrath against this people.
24 They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led away as captives among all nations. Jerusalem will be trampled down by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

I understand what you were saying about the saints being led away captive mentioned in Revelation 13, but to me that doesn't seem to fit as well as the fact that Jerusalem was indeed trampled under foot by the Roman legions, and the Jews were led away captive into all nations (as you know it's written about extensively in Josephus' historical account).

So the question that I've never seen anyone give a convincing answer to (meaning one that convinces me, not necessarily others), is: What is "the times of the Gentiles", and how and when was this fulfilled / will it be fulfilled? People have different ideas about it. Could it be a reference to the times of the people of the prince who was to come mentioned in Daniel 9:26-27 - the Roman legions who carried out both the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, killing many Jews, and leading the remnant captive into all nations?

Whatever the case may be, to me it's really, really shortsighted though to pretend either that Matthew and Luke both speak about an abomination of desolation in the holy place, or that Mathew 24:9-31 and Luke 21:20-23 are both speaking about God's wrath. Matthew doesn't even mention anyone being led away captive into all nations either. He speaks only about the tribulation of the disciples followed by their redemption in Matthew 24:9-31.

The gospel according to Preterism and Partial Preterism ignores all these differences between Matthew's account and Luke's account, and the glaring discrepancy regarding the sign to the disciples of Jesus that they should flee Judea, pretending that none of it exists. That 'gospel' also ignores the facts regarding what the New Testament associates with tribulation (mentioned in Post #1 in this thread), and they assume that the building that was once the holy place but ceased being the holy place the moment Jesus died on the cross, was somehow still the holy place 40 years later.

 

[DavidPT]

I understand what you were saying about the saints being led away captive mentioned in Revelation 13, but to me that doesn't seem to fit as well as the fact that Jerusalem was indeed trampled under foot by the Roman legions, and the Jews were led away captive into all nations (as you know it's written about extensively in Josephus' historical account).

I fully agree with this. I wasn't suggesting that it has to be one or the other. It was suggesting it might be both. But it would be in a different manner. When applying it to Luke 21:20-23, it is obviously meaning in a literal sense. But if applying it to that verse in Revelation 13, it would be meaning in another manner, another sense, especially if that verse in Revelation 13 is being applied to the final days of this age involving the 42 month reign of the beast. It still 100% applies to what you have it applying to, regardless.

So the question that I've never seen anyone give a convincing answer to (meaning one that convinces me, not necessarily others), is: What is "the times of the Gentiles", and how and when was this fulfilled / will it be fulfilled? People have different ideas about it. Could it be a reference to the times of the people of the prince who was to come mentioned in Daniel 9:26-27 - the Roman legions who carried out both the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, killing many Jews, and leading the remnant captive into all nations?

Are you meaning in general? Or are you only meaning in regards to Preterists not providng a convincing answer? One thing we know is, if we compare Revelation 11:2 with Luke 21:24, this is telling us that the former is being meant like such.

But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles (until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled) : and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months. And that if we are applying this 42 months to that of Revelation 13:5, and that if we applying Revelation 13:5 to the final days of this age, isn't this telling us when the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled, that it is once this 42 months have been fulfilled? How can Revelation 11:2 involve Gentiles without it involving the times of the Gentiles?

 

[Zao is life]

I fully agree with this. I wasn't suggesting that it has to be one or the other. It was suggesting it might be both. But it would be in a different manner. When applying it to Luke 21:20-23, it is obviously meaning in a literal sense. But if applying it to that verse in Revelation 13, it would be meaning in another manner, another sense, especially if that verse in Revelation 13 is being applied to the final days of this age involving the 42 month reign of the beast. It still 100% applies to what you have it applying to, regardless.





Are you meaning in general? Or are you only meaning in regards to Preterists not providng a convincing answer? One thing we know is, if we compare Revelation 11:2 with Luke 21:24, this is telling us that the former is being meant like such.

But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles (until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled) : and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months. And that if we are applying this 42 months to that of Revelation 13:5, and that if we applying Revelation 13:5 to the final days of this age, isn't this telling us when the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled, that it is once this 42 months have been fulfilled? How can Revelation 11:2 involve Gentiles without it involving the times of the Gentiles?

The pattern might be the same but the Revelation only mentions these cities:

1. New Jerusalem.
2. Babylon the Great.
3. The city spiritually called Sodom and Egypt.
4. The cities of the nations that fell when the 7th vial was poured out.

There are no verses in the Revelation where 2, 3 and 4 are called "the holy city", but the Revelation calls New Jerusalem "the holy city" three times: Revelation 21:2; Revelation 21:10; and Revelation 22:19.

Revelation 11:2 is talking about the holy city. The temple that Revelation 11:1 is referring to is the naós - it uses the word naós for "temple".

The other city referred to in Revelation chapter 11, is referred to as a city that is "spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified." (Revelation 11:8).

Unless 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and Revelation 11:1 are the only exceptions, the word naos is never used in reference to the temple in Jerusalem following the tearing of the veil. After the tearing of the veil the word naos is only used in reference to the church and the temple in heaven (multiple times), and Revelation 11:1 and Revelation 11:2 are obviously connected to one and the same prophecy.

So personally I do not see Revelation 11:2 as referring to the same Jerusalem that was trampled underfoot by Gentiles in 70 A.D. Preterists, Partial Preterists, and Dispensationlists and many others certainly do, but I don't.

I believe that the naos = the faithful church in Revelation 11:1, and the outer courts the beast and his armies mentioned in Revelation 13:7. So I don't take Revelation 11:1 as a literal physical temple, nor the holy city in Revelation 11:2 as a reference to the literal physical Jerusalem, but to this:

But you have come to Mount Zion
and to the city of the living God,
the heavenly Jerusalem,
and to an innumerable company of angels,
to the general assembly and church of the first-born
who are written in Heaven,
and to God the judge of all,
and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
and to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant,
and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.
(Hebrews 12:22-24)

Jerusalem of 70 A.D was an unfaithful harlot, not a holy city. And the Revelation was given only decades after 70 A.D.

@DavidPT In scriptures a "time" = 1 year. "A time, times and a half a time" 3.5 years. The "times" of the Gentiles trampling the holy city underfoot written in the context of speaking about:

a. The wrath of God coming upon Jerusalem in 70 A.D; and
b. The Jews being led away captive into all nations,

Seems to me to be speaking about the years of the Roman army's besieging of Jerusalem during those days, and their destruction of the city once their armies had breached its walls, and the sanctuary once their armies had breached the temple's walls later.

There was no food going into the city. When the Romans breached the city's walls, the starving Jews who escaped, escaped into the temple, until those walls were finally also breached. It was an horrific time. Women were eating their dead babies. Jews began killing one another. The blood of some spilled on the altar. The temple, were it still the holy place, was most certainly defiled by all the abominations taking place. But it was no longer the holy place.

"The times of the Gentiles being fulfilled" seems to me to be talking about the years during which Daniel 9:26-27 was being fulfilled.

@DavidPT I don't believe it's referring to "until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in" either (Romans 11:25).

 

[mnorian]

Mod hat on

This thread is permanently closed for
flaming and arguing.
Mod hat off.​