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

[Zao is life]

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?

See Post #1 in this thread regarding tribulation vs wrath.

"Then they will deliver you up to tribulation (thlipsis) and will kill you. And you will be hated of all nations for My name's sake..

.. 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..

.. 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..

.. for then shall be great tribulation (megas thlipsis), such as has not been since the beginning of the world to this time; no, nor ever shall be.
And unless those days should be shortened, no flesh would be saved. But for the elect's sake, those days shall be shortened."

What you don't realise, is that the words 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.

What Prets and Part Prets don't realise is that because you conflate the great tribulation (megas thlipsis) of the disciples of Jesus mentioned in Matthew 24:21-22 with the wrath of God coming upon Jerusalem mentioned in Luke 21:23, you are also conflating the tribulation (thlipsis) 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).

The grammar of the passage (Matthew 24:9-31) and meaning and context of the words thlipsis (tribulation) and megas thlipsis (great tribulation) is (a) not the same as the wrath of God; and (b) does not allow for the passage to be sliced up into different subjects speaking about different events.

What you also don't realise (or refuse to consider) is that the word naos, whenever used in reference to the temple of God in the New Testament, is only referring to the actual sanctuary - the holy place - (see Post #2 in this thread):

Hieron always refer to the buildings and the entire temple complex - the physical structure - of the temple in Jerusalem, and unlike the word naos, the word continues to be used in reference to the Jerusalem temple past the time of the crucifixion of Christ

- but the word naos (i.e the holy place, the sanctuary of God) stops being used in reference to the Jerusalem temple in the verses talking about the tearing of the veil - in other words, from the moment Jesus died (circa 30 A.D). After this, wherever the word naos appears in reference to the temple of God, it's only speaking about the body of Christ (the church) or the temple in heaven). I've listed all the New Testament verses using each of the two words in Post #2, for whoever believes that it should be taken into consideration.

So the holy place mentioned in Matthew 24:15 cannot be taken to mean a physical temple - because it's connected with the thlipsis and megas thlipsis of the disciples of Jesus that the passage is speaking about, which is mentioned in Matthew 24:21-22 - the same tribulation of the disciples which was first mentioned in Matthew 24:9, which the grammar Matthew chose when he wrote the passage, joins into one and the same subject about one and the same tribulation of the disciples.

So if you conflate the megas thlipsis of Matthew 24:21-22 (which is the experience of the disciples) with the orge mentioned in Luke 21:23 (which is the experience of the unbelieving Jews in Jerusalem in 70 A.D), then you are conflating the thlipsis of Matthew 24:9-10 with the wrath of God coming upon Jeruslem in 70 A.D also.

The temple Jesus was talking about when He was standing in the temple prophesying of its coming destruction and talking to the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 24:37-38 - Matthew 24:1-2) is not the holy place Jesus was talking about when He had come out the temple, walked through the Kidron Valley, up the Mount of Olives, and sat down on the Mount of Olives, and was talking to His disciples about their coming tribulation (Matthew 24:9-15).

 

[claninja]

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.

Exactly!!! Not ONE COMMENTER would be applying vs 9 to the wrath upon the Jews in 70ad. And you are 100% correct that includes preterists. So it is indeed a strawman.

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.

Just because FOTG believes vs 9 is related to vs 15-21, doesn’t mean he can foist that onto preterism’s beliefs, in order to falsely claim they conflate vs 9 with Luke 21:23.

I even stated multiple times now, let’s assume preterism is 100% wrong. That still wouldn’t mean that preterism believes vs 9 is related to vs 21 of Matthew 24, in any way.

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

Bingo!!! I absolutely agree that this “example” argument I made is not valid. It’s horribly poor argument against premil that doesn’t even make sense. It’s a strawman. Just as FOTG attempts to foist his own belief of Matthew 24 onto preterism in order to make a strawman, my absolutely terrible and poor example argument foists the preterism belief onto premil in order to make a strawman.

 

[claninja]

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.

Right, but you can’t foist your own belief into another position and claim they believe it.

For example. Let’s say you believe Matthew 24:9-10 is related to Matthew 24:15-21, but preterism does not. You can’t claim that preterism conflates Luke 21:23 with Mathew 24:9-10, just because you personally believe Matthew 24:9-10 is related to Matthew 24:15-21. For the same reason It would be wildly inappropriate for me to claim you, David, conflate the ascension with the 2nd coming because I personally believe Matthew 24:30 is an allusion to the ascension. Do you see what I’m saying?

 

[claninja]

See Post #1 in this thread regarding tribulation vs wrath.

"Then they will deliver you up to tribulation (thlipsis) and will kill you. And you will be hated of all nations for My name's sake..

.. 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..

.. 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..

.. for then shall be great tribulation (megas thlipsis), such as has not been since the beginning of the world to this time; no, nor ever shall be.
And unless those days should be shortened, no flesh would be saved. But for the elect's sake, those days shall be shortened."

What you don't realise, is that the words 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.

What Prets and Part Prets don't realise is that because you conflate the great tribulation (megas thlipsis) of the disciples of Jesus mentioned in Matthew 24:21-22 with the wrath of God coming upon Jerusalem mentioned in Luke 21:23, you are also conflating the tribulation (thlipsis) 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).

The grammar of the passage (Matthew 24:9-31) and meaning and context of the words thlipsis (tribulation) and megas thlipsis (great tribulation) is (a) not the same as the wrath of God; and (b) does not allow for the passage to be sliced up into different subjects speaking about different events.

What you also don't realise (or refuse to consider) is that the word naos, whenever used in reference to the temple of God in the New Testament, is only referring to the actual sanctuary - the holy place - (see Post #2 in this thread):

Hieron always refer to the buildings and the entire temple complex - the physical structure - of the temple in Jerusalem, and unlike the word naos, the word continues to be used in reference to the Jerusalem temple past the time of the crucifixion of Christ

- but the word naos (i.e the holy place, the sanctuary of God) stops being used in reference to the Jerusalem temple in the verses talking about the tearing of the veil - in other words, from the moment Jesus died (circa 30 A.D). After this, wherever the word naos appears in reference to the temple of God, it's only speaking about the body of Christ (the church) or the temple in heaven). I've listed all the New Testament verses using each of the two words in Post #2, for whoever believes that it should be taken into consideration.

So the holy place mentioned in Matthew 24:15 cannot be taken to mean a physical temple - because it's connected with the thlipsis and megas thlipsis of the disciples of Jesus that the passage is speaking about, which is mentioned in Matthew 24:21-22 - the same tribulation of the disciples which was first mentioned in Matthew 24:9, which the grammar Matthew chose when he wrote the passage, joins into one and the same subject about one and the same tribulation of the disciples.

So if you conflate the megas thlipsis of Matthew 24:21-22 (which is the experience of the disciples) with the orge mentioned in Luke 21:23 (which is the experience of the unbelieving Jews in Jerusalem in 70 A.D), then you are conflating the thlipsis of Matthew 24:9-10 with the wrath of God coming upon Jeruslem in 70 A.D also.

The temple Jesus was talking about when He was standing in the temple prophesying of its coming destruction and talking to the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 24:37-38 - Matthew 24:1-2) is not the holy place Jesus was talking about when He had come out the temple, walked through the Kidron Valley, up the Mount of Olives, and sat down on the Mount of Olives, and was talking to His disciples about their coming tribulation (Matthew 24:9-15).

I really don’t care about your irrelevant argument with the “grammar”. Let’s just go ahead and assume, preterism is 100% wrong with their understanding of the “grammar”. That still doesn’t mean they believe the persecution of the saints in Matthew 24:9-20 is the same event as the great tribulation in matthew 24:15-21. Just because you believe it is, does NOT mean preterism believes it. Your argument is built on a strawman.

 

[claninja]

Maybe that argument against Preterists should be dropped altogether?

Agreed

 

[Bobber]

While that might explain any martyrdom up unto 70 AD, it doesn't explain all of the following, though.

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

Why should anyone think this is only meaning up unto 70 AD and not also involving any martyrdom post 70 AD? Why would anyone want to interpret that in that manner in a vacuum?

I think also where it says a tribulation that shall never be like it again.....70 AD doesn't seem like it can fit the mode of that. Tribulation of Jews in NAZI Germany far exceeded that.

For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. Mt 24:21

 

[DavidPT]

Right, but you can’t foist your own belief into another position and claim they believe it.

In my case, in regards to these other Amils in question, where I think I went wrong, thus got misunderstood, thus accused me of misrepresenting their view multiple times, is this. I started out my argument like such---assuming Amil. Where they apparently took that to mean everything I said after that, I was insisting Amils believe those things. Except I wasn't doing that. What I was doing was this. By saying assuming Amil, I was basically saying assuming the thousand years are before the 2nd coming, since that is what Amils believe, thus assuming Amil, then me arguing why this can't be correct, in light of this or in light of that, meaning whatever I was using as an argument against Amil at the time. And speaking of conflating, they were obviously conflating my arguments against their view with that of their view, as if I was insisting that what I was arguing against their view that this is what they believed. Thus why it eventually upset me since they continued to insist I was misrepresenting their view, one of them even saying I was being dishonest. Had they exercised proper reading comprehension at the time, they then would have separated my arguments against their view from that of their view, instead of conflating these things.

 

[DavidPT]

I think also where it says a tribulation that shall never be like it again.....70 AD doesn't seem like it can fit the mode of that. Tribulation of Jews in NAZI Germany far exceeded that.

For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. Mt 24:21

I agree. And like I pointed out in another post, maybe you read it, maybe you didn't, Revelation 7:14 undeniably proves that great tribulation is not meaning wrath on the unbelieving Jews in the first century pertaining to 70 AD. Because if it was it would mean these in Revelation 7:14 that came out of great tribulation, this is meaning unbelieving Jews.

Great tribulation per Revelation 7:14 is obviously pertaining to persecution of the church not wrath upon unbelieving Jews in the first century or any century.

And then if we factor the following in.

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


And that anyone who is incorrectly applying great tribulation to that of wrath on the unbelieving Jews in the first century, then changes their view and agrees great tribulation is meaning persecution of the church, yet unwilling to agree it is meaning in the end of this age, thus still concluding it is involving the first century up to 70 AD, well, obviously even that can't fit what Revelation 7:9 records then. There is no way that 40 years of persecution on the church in the first century could possibly agree with this---a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues.

Apparently then, since great tribulation has not occurred yet, the number of martyrs it is going to be involving is going to be staggering. Likely why Jesus said that if those days are not cut short, there would be no flesh saved. For the elect's sake, meaning Christians, those days shall be cut short.

 

[Zao is life]

I really don’t care about your irrelevant argument with the “grammar”. Let’s just go ahead and assume, preterism is 100% wrong with their understanding of the “grammar”. That still doesn’t mean they believe the persecution of the saints in Matthew 24:9-20 is the same event as the great tribulation in matthew 24:15-21. Just because you believe it is, does NOT mean preterism believes it. Your argument is built on a strawman.

No straw man. Great tribulation does not equate with God's wrath. Just because you believe it does, does not mean that saying you conflate great tribulation with God's wrath is a straw man. Nor does just because you believe it's a straw man make it a straw man. It's s statement of fact, because you do indeed conflate the two.

 

[claninja]

No straw man. Great tribulation does not equate with God's wrath. Just because you believe it does, does not mean that saying you conflate great tribulation with God's wrath is a straw man. Nor does just because you believe it's a straw man make it a straw man. It's s statement of fact, because you do indeed conflate the two.

I told you i don’t multiple times now. I told you preterism doesn’t conflate Matthew 24:9-10 with Luke 21:23 multiple times now. Even Davidpt recognizes you’re making a strawman. You continue to falsely misrepresent preterism. Does this need to be reported?

 

[claninja]

I agree. And like I pointed out in another post, maybe you read it, maybe you didn't, Revelation 7:14 undeniably proves that great tribulation is not meaning wrath on the unbelieving Jews in the first century pertaining to 70 AD. Because if it was it would mean these in Revelation 7:14 that came out of great tribulation, this is meaning unbelieving Jews

1.) I would again argue biblical hyperbole:

The author of 2 kings said there was no king like Hezekiah before of AFTER. Then states the exact same thing a few chapters about a different king that came AFTER Hezekiah: Josiah.

2 kings 18:5 He trusted in the LORD, the God of Israel, so that there was none like him among all the kings of Judah after him, nor among those who were before him.

2 kings 23:25 25Before him there was no king like him, who turned to the LORD with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his might, according to all the Law of Moses, nor did any like him arise after him.

Notice Ezekiel’s prophecy of judgement against Jerusalem that would be brought upon by Babylon.

Ezekiel 5:9 9And because of all your abominations I will do with you what I have never yet done, and the like of which I will never do again.

But even if Jesus’s words are not to be understood as hyperbole in Matthew 24:21, many commentators from Premill to postmill to Amil agree that nothing compares to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70ad.

Premil John Gill on Matthew 24:21

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

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

2.) in the OD, the disciples are instructed to flee judea when the great tribulation (matthew 24:15) occurs, and when the armies surround jerusalem (luke 23:21). In revelation those are called to come out of Babylon (apostate Israel, charged with all the righteous blood shed) in order to avoid taking part in its judgment (revelation 18:4). The same word for “come out” in revelation 18:4 is used for those coming out of the great tribulation in revelation 7.

 

[claninja]

In my case, in regards to these other Amils in question, where I think I went wrong, thus got misunderstood, thus accused me of misrepresenting their view multiple times, is this. I started out my argument like such---assuming Amil. Where they apparently took that to mean everything I said after that, I was insisting Amils believe those things. Except I wasn't doing that. What I was doing was this. By saying assuming Amil, I was basically saying assuming the thousand years are before the 2nd coming, since that is what Amils believe, thus assuming Amil, then me arguing why this can't be correct, in light of this or in light of that, meaning whatever I was using as an argument against Amil at the time. And speaking of conflating, they were obviously conflating my arguments against their view with that of their view, as if I was insisting that what I was arguing against their view that this is what they believed. Thus why it eventually upset me since they continued to insist I was misrepresenting their view, one of them even saying I was being dishonest. Had they exercised proper reading comprehension at the time, they then would have separated my arguments against their view from that of their view, instead of conflating these things.

Right, but the point still stands: I shouldn’t inappropriately foist my personal belief onto your position in order to distort your beliefs and then make a strawman against you…unless you agree with the OP that is ok to do?

 

[Zao is life]

I told you i don’t multiple times now. I told you preterism doesn’t conflate Matthew 24:9-10 with Luke 21:23 multiple times now. Even Davidpt recognizes you’re making a strawman. You continue to falsely misrepresent preterism. Does this need to be reported?

I've also told you multiple times now that Matthew 24:21-22 is talking about the same tribulation of the saints Jesus began to speak about in n Matthew 24:9, but you still (even now) keep conflating it with the wrath of God that was to come upon Jerusalem.

Your circular reasoning is standing out again. The only reason why you see a straw man where there is none, is because you don't believe that Matthew 24:21 is talking about the same tribulation of the disciples that Jesus began to speak about in Matthew 24:9.

No straw man in my book, straw man in your book.

So you can tell me multiple times x 1.000 to the power of infinity it's a straw man but I know (because you have said so multiple times) that you believe that the great tribulation that is the experience of the saints (Matthew 24:9, 21) is talking about the wrath of God coming upon Jerusalem.

No straw man to me. Straw man to you. Obviously you won't agree that it's not a straw man - because you conflate the great tribulation of the saints (Matthew 24:9, 21) with the wrath of God that was to come upon Jerusalem.

Just because you practice a false dichotomy of the passage by slicing the Lord's mention of the great tribulation of the saints off after Matthew 24:10, does not mean that everyone else has to practice the same hacking of the scripture and messing with its meaning that you do.

1. The tribulation mentioned in Matthew 24:21 is the tribulation of the saints.
2. You say the verse is talking the wrath of God coming upon Jerusalem.

So you have the tribulation that is the experience of the saints conflated with the wrath of God that was to come upon Jerusalem.

3. The tribulation mentioned in Matthew 24:21 is the same tribulation that Jesus began to speak about in Matthew 24:9.

Just because you don't believe either (1) or (3) above, does not mean that you do not have the tribulation that is the experience of the saints conflated with the wrath of God that was to come upon Jerusalem.

Note:

I. The facts listed in Post #1 in this thread; and
II. The grammar of the passage from Matthew 24:9 onward does not permit the slicing up of the passage after verse 10 into two different topics about what is to come upon two different groups of people.

Luke makes it obvious that he is talking about the tribulation and persecution of the saints leading up to the coming of the Son of man, and their redemption, in Luke 21:12-19 & Luke 21:27-28, but about the wrath of God coming upon Jerusalem in Luke 21:20-24, where Luke 21:23 specifically uses the word orge (wrath), not the word tribulation.

Matthew makes it obvious by the grammar he uses in Matthew 24:9-31 that he's talking only about the tribulation of the saints, and does not even use the word "wrath" in this passage.

There is no straw man argument in the title of this thread. You have the great tribulation that will be the experience of the saints at the end of the Age conflated with the wrath of God that was to come upon Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

It's only a straw man to you and to all those who believe in the validity of your false dichotomy of Matthew 24.

Congratulations for ensuring that the facts get repeated multiple times.

PS: @DavidPT had no right to saying that the argument should be dropped just because he sees it from both sides (as he said in his post).

This is not his thread. I don't suggest he drop his argument in any of his threads - so your referencing what DavidPT said in his post both ignores the fact that he made it plain that he sees the argument from both sides AND therefore thinks the argument "should be dropped", and is another example of how you repeatedly grasp at things that do not prove what you are saying.

Until such time as you can prove from scripture that Matthew 24:21 is not still talking about the same tribulation of the saints that Jesus began to talk about in Matthew 24:9, and until such time as you can prove from scripture that Matthew 24:21's reference to tribulation is actually talking about wrath, not tribulation, you cannot prove that you do not have the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus conflated with the wrath of God coming upon Jerusalem.

But you have offered absolutely no scriptural basis in this thread for why tribulation is the same as God's wrath. You've been too busy trying to prove a straw man argument where there is none. Maybe you could start by challenging Post #1 in this thread, since you equate the tribulation of the saints with God's wrath that came upon Jerusalem.

 

[Zao is life]

And preterism does conflate the great tribulation of Matthew 24: 21 with the days of wrath in luke 21:23.

Such a contradiction in one and the same post. By your own admission above, Preterism conflates tribulation with wrath, though they are not the same (See Post #1).

Preterism conflates the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus (Matthew 24:21) with the wrath of God that came upon Jerusalem in 70 A.D (Luke 21:23), and creates a false dichotomy in Matthew 24:9-31 by slicing the topic of tribulation off at Matthew 24:9-10, though neither the consistent distinction that the New Testament makes between tribulation and wrath (see Post #1) nor the grammar of the passage (Matthew 24:9-11) permits such a thing, but instead makes it obvious that the tribulation being spoken of in Matthew 24:21 & Matthew 24:29 is the same tribulation Jesus began speaking of in Matthew 24:9.

It's no wonder your post above contradicts itself.

Please address Post #1 in this thread and say why you equate tribulation and great tribulation with the wrath of God, because up till now your argument about the title of this thread being a straw man is itself straw man argument.

 

[claninja]

I've also told you multiple times now that Matthew 24:21-22 is talking about the same tribulation of the saints Jesus began to speak about in n Matthew 24:9, but you still (even now) keep conflating it with the wrath of God that was to come upon Jerusalem.

Your circular reasoning is standing out again. The only reason why you see a straw man where there is none, is because you don't believe that Matthew 24:21 is talking about the same tribulation of the disciples that Jesus began to speak about in Matthew 24:9.

No straw man in my book, straw man in your book.

So you can tell me multiple times x 1.000 to the power of infinity it's a straw man but I know (because you have said so multiple times) that you believe that the great tribulation that is the experience of the saints (Matthew 24:9, 21) is talking about the wrath of God coming upon Jerusalem.

No straw man to me. Straw man to you. Obviously you won't agree that it's not a straw man - because you conflate the great tribulation of the saints (Matthew 24:9, 21) with the wrath of God that was to come upon Jerusalem.

Just because you practice a false dichotomy of the passage by slicing the Lord's mention of the great tribulation of the saints off after Matthew 24:10, does not mean that everyone else has to practice the same hacking of the scripture and messing with its meaning that you do.

1. The tribulation mentioned in Matthew 24:21 is the tribulation of the saints.
2. You say the verse is talking the wrath of God coming upon Jerusalem.

So you have the tribulation that is the experience of the saints conflated with the wrath of God that was to come upon Jerusalem.

3. The tribulation mentioned in Matthew 24:21 is the same tribulation that Jesus began to speak about in Matthew 24:9.

Just because you don't believe either (1) or (3) above, does not mean that you do not have the tribulation that is the experience of the saints conflated with the wrath of God that was to come upon Jerusalem.

Note:

I. The facts listed in Post #1 in this thread; and
II. The grammar of the passage from Matthew 24:9 onward does not permit the slicing up of the passage after verse 10 into two different topics about what is to come upon two different groups of people.

Luke makes it obvious that he is talking about the tribulation and persecution of the saints leading up to the coming of the Son of man, and their redemption, in Luke 21:12-19 & Luke 21:27-28, but about the wrath of God coming upon Jerusalem in Luke 21:20-24, where Luke 21:23 specifically uses the word orge (wrath), not the word tribulation.

Matthew makes it obvious by the grammar he uses in Matthew 24:9-31 that he's talking only about the tribulation of the saints, and does not even use the word "wrath" in this passage.

There is no straw man argument in the title of this thread. You have the great tribulation that will be the experience of the saints at the end of the Age conflated with the wrath of God that was to come upon Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

It's only a straw man to you and to all those who believe in the validity of your false dichotomy of Matthew 24.

Congratulations for ensuring that the facts get repeated multiple times.

PS: @DavidPT had no right to saying that the argument should be dropped just because he sees it from both sides (as he said in his post).

This is not his thread. I don't suggest he drop his argument in any of his threads - so your referencing what DavidPT said in his post both ignores the fact that he made it plain that he sees the argument from both sides AND therefore thinks the argument "should be dropped", and is another example of how you repeatedly grasp at things that do not prove what you are saying.

Until such time as you can prove from scripture that Matthew 24:21 is not still talking about the same tribulation of the saints that Jesus began to talk about in Matthew 24:9, and until such time as you can prove from scripture that Matthew 24:21's reference to tribulation is actually talking about wrath, not tribulation, you cannot prove that you do not have the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus conflated with the wrath of God coming upon Jerusalem.

But you have offered absolutely no scriptural basis in this thread for why tribulation is the same as God's wrath. You've been too busy trying to prove a straw man argument where there is none. Maybe you could start by challenging Post #1 in this thread, since you equate the tribulation of the saints with God's wrath that came upon Jerusalem.

Like I said, preterism doesn’t believe Matthew 24:9-10 is the same event as Luke 21:23. Such would be a strawman.

 

[claninja]

Preterism conflates the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus (Matthew 24:21) with the wrath of God that came upon Jerusalem in 70 A.D (Luke 21:23),

Preterism believes the olivet discourses of Matthew, mark, Luke are parallel accounts. Therefore, preterism holds that:

1.) Persecution of the disciples = mark 13:9-13, Matthew 24:9-10, luke 21:12-19

2.) Destruction of earthly Jerusalem and the 2nd temple = mark 13:14-20, Matthew 15-21, luke 21:20-24.

Preterism does NOT hold that Matthew 24:21 = persecution of the saints. Just because YOU do, doesn’t mean preterism does. I don’t think you’re understanding the difference there.

Preterism believes that the great tribulation of earthly Jerusalem and the 2nd temple (matthew 24:21) = the wrath of God (luke 21:23).

Now, if you want to claim Preterism is wrong and does NOT conflate the persecution of the saints (matthew 24:9-10) with the great tribulation (matthew 24:15-21), that would be a correct argument and would not be a strawman. Then you could go listing the reasons as to why preterism is wrong for not conflating these two events. But claiming that preterism conflates the wrath of God with the persecution of the saints is false and is indeed a strawman argument.

 

[Zao is life]

Like I said, preterism doesn’t believe Matthew 24:9-10 is the same event as Luke 21:23. Such would be a strawman.

And preterism does conflate the great tribulation of Matthew 24: 21 with the days of wrath in luke 21:23.

By your own admission above, there is no straw man. You still have not addressed Post #1 in this thread in order to attempt to prove from scripture that tribulation = wrath.

Up to now all you've done is to imply that tribulation is not equated with wrath in Matthew 24:9 but it is = wrath in Matthew 24:21. So all you do is contradict yourself and then produce the straw man argument that "saying that you are equating the tribulation of the disciples with wrath is a straw man". Should this be reported?

Strange thing is I never report posts. I'm bigger and more adult than crying to the teacher in the class that someone is falsely accusing me. Everyone who doesn't follow your eschatological model can see what you are doing when you side-step and divert by creating red herrings. Your straw man false accusation is just another one of your red herrings.

 

[claninja]

By your own admission above, there is no straw man. You still have not addressed Post #1 in this thread in order to attempt to prove from scripture that tribulation = wrath.

Up to now all you've done is to imply that tribulation is not equated with wrath in Matthew 24:9 but it is = wrath in Matthew 24:21. So all you do is contradict yourself and then produce the straw man argument that "saying that you are equating the tribulation of the disciples with wrath is a straw man". Should this be reported?

Strange thing is I never report posts. I'm bigger and more adult than crying to the teacher in the class that someone is falsely accusing me. Everyone who doesn't follow your eschatological model can see what you are doing when you side-step and divert by creating red herrings.

Again, preterism does not believe Matthew 24:21 is the same event as Matthew 24:9-10. I’ve stated this multiple times now. To claim such over and over again, despite being informed that it isn’t true, is a strawman, And will be taken as flaming language and reported.

Now, I would be interested in having a discussion as to why you conflate Matthew 24:9-10 with Matthew 24:21-15, while preterism doesn’t. This seems to be your ultimate goal. so if you can leave out the strawman claim that preterism believes the persecution of the saints = the wrath of God, then I would like to actually engage you on this discussion.

 

[DavidPT]

I told you i don’t multiple times now. I told you preterism doesn’t conflate Matthew 24:9-10 with Luke 21:23 multiple times now. Even Davidpt recognizes you’re making a strawman. You continue to falsely misrepresent preterism. Does this need to be reported?

Maybe the better solution here, is this. Since every interpreter on the planet realizes that it is not reasonable to apply verse 9 to that of the wrath upon unbelieving Jews in the first century, they then should quit insisting the great tribulation is involving wrath upon unbelieving Jews in the first century, since verse 9 is proving that interpretion is incorrect.

Technically speaking, if in reality it is verse 9 that involves great tribulation, not wrath upon unbelieving Jews in the first century instead, that logically means verse 9 is getting conflated with wrath upon unbelieving Jews in the first century since that interpreter is applying great tribulation to those events. Even though that interpreter is not applying verse 9 to 70 AD, that person is inadvertently applying that verse to 70 AD if that person has great tribulation meaning wrath upon unbelieving Jew in the first century, but in reality, it is verse 9 that is applicable to great tribulation.

Which means this debunks any view that insists great tribulation is wrath upon unbelieving Jews in the first century. and since it is not reasonable to apply verse 9 to 70 AD, and that no interpreter intentionally would, the solution is to simply admit that person's interpretation has been debunked and that interpreter should then quit interpreting great tribulation in that manner since it is making nonsense out of verse 9 which logically means verse 9 has to be applied to something it can't possibly fit, even though that interpreter would never intentionally apply verse 9 to that. Yet, that is beside the point. It doesn't matter that that interpreter would never intentionally apply verse 9 to 70 AD, but by applying great tribulation to 70 AD when verse 9 applies to great tribulation, is to then logically apply verse 9 to events it can't fit and that everyone on the planet already agrees it can't fit. Because, if verse 9 fits with great tribulation, and if one is then insisting great tribulation fits 70 AD, this logically places verse 9 during 70 AD since that is what this interpreter is applying great tribulation to.

Reporting @Fullness of the Gentiles doesn't seem like a reasonable solution to me since I don't see @Fullness of the Gentiles doing anything wrong here. Sure, I suggested that maybe that argument should be dropped, but not because I felt @Fullness of the Gentiles was doing anything wrong here, but because you felt that he was, and that maybe it might be better since we all can't get on the same page regarding this, is to maybe drop the argument altogether. And from your perspective I can see why you might see this as a straw man the fact you are not applying verse 9 to 70 AD to begin with, except you're not factoring in that by applying great tribulation to 70 AD is to then logically apply verse 9 to 70 AD as well if that verse itself is applicable to great tribulation.

The issue is then this. If in reality it is @Fullness of the Gentiles that is interpreting great tribulation correctly, then he has a valid argument that this is to then conflate verse 9 with 70 AD, regardless that no interpreter would intentionally do that. OTOH, if in reality it is you that is interpreting great tribulation correctly, then you have a valid argument against @Fullness of the Gentiles insisting that you are conflating verse 9 with 70 AD. But the problem is, no one can undeniably prove to all interpreters that it is they that is interpreting great tribulation correctly, thus every interpreter on the planet then interpreting great tribulation in the same manner instead of it being debatable.

 

[DavidPT]

By your own admission above, there is no straw man. You still have not addressed Post #1 in this thread in order to attempt to prove from scripture that tribulation = wrath.

Up to now all you've done is to imply that tribulation is not equated with wrath in Matthew 24:9 but it is = wrath in Matthew 24:21. So all you do is contradict yourself and then produce the straw man argument that "saying that you are equating the tribulation of the disciples with wrath is a straw man". Should this be reported?

Strange thing is I never report posts. I'm bigger and more adult than crying to the teacher in the class that someone is falsely accusing me. Everyone who doesn't follow your eschatological model can see what you are doing when you side-step and divert by creating red herrings. Your straw man false accusation is just another one of your red herrings.

You and I are are a lot alike in some regards. I don't know if that is a good thing or a bad thing, meaning from your perspective. We somewhat think and reason alike though you obviously can articulate your thoughts way better than I can articulate mine. This last post I made, post #99 allowed me to further realize this, that you and I are a lot alike in some regards.

I think what is getting misunderstood here by Preterists, there is a difference in intentionally doing something as opposed to doing it unintentionally. Meaning, as to Preterists, they are not intentionally applying verse 9 to 70 AD, yet they are logically applying verse 9 to 70 AD if they are applying great tribulation to 70 AD and that if verse 9 applies to great tribulation. That does add up to conflating these things, but not in the sense they are intentionally applying verse 9 to 70 AD, but because verse 9 has to logically apply to 70 AD if great tribulation is being applied to 70 AD and that if verse 9 applies to great tribulation. Therefore, in a scenario like that one can't divorce verse 9 from 70 AD. That would have to be the logical conclusion to arrive at. Except it is not logical that verse 9 can fit 70 AD. Therefore, to make the contradiction go away altogether, simply quit applying great tribulation to 70 AD.