claninja
Well-Known Member
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.
David, if I do the reverse, you believe it’s acceptable?
1.) For example, as a preterist, I believe Matthews OD and Luke’s OD are parallel. You, being a Premill, however, believe they are not parallel.
2.) I believe the great tribulation of Matthew 24:15-21 = the days of wrath in luke 21:21-24. You, being a premil believe, don’t believe they are equal. Instead, you believe the great tribulation of Matthew 24:15-21 is related to the persecution of the saints in Matthew 24:9-10.
3.) So, because I believe the great tribulation of Matthew 24:15-21 = the days of wrath in luke 21:21-24, should i foist that belief into your position and claim that you and premils conflate the days of wrath with the persecution of the saints? Obviously No, as that would be a distortion of what you and Premill actually believes. It would be a strawman argument.
Now, let’s say I make this argument, but you then inform me that premils do not believe great tribulation of Matthew 24:15-21 is parallel to the days of wrath in luke 21:21-24. I then proceed to repeatedly tell you that you do. You see nothing wrong with that?
Back to the OP, I don’t understand the argument at all and it doesn’t make sense. Why not just argue preterists incorrectly do not conflate the persecution of the saints in Matthew 29:9-10 with the great tribulation in Matthew 24:15-21? That requires no strawman nor flaming, and then a dialogue can actually occur.
Last edited:
Upvote
0