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

[claninja]

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.

 

[Zao is life]

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.

I'ts not a straw man argument to point out that someone is equating tribulation with God's wrath, especially since in Post #1, I gave a list of all New Testament verses talking about tribulation (thlipsis), including the only three that describe a specific period of tribulation with an adjective, i.e great tribulation (megas thlipsis).

If someone doesn't understand or pretends not to understand why Post #1 in this thread would apply to this discussion, or why I would say that tribulation and great tribulation cannot be equated with the wrath of God (whether with the wrath of God which came upon Jerusalem in 70 A.D, or the wrath of God still to come), then I'm done, because in light of Post #1 in this thread it's easy to see that It's definitely not a straw man argument to say that someone is conflating tribulation with God's wrath if they equate the tribulation mentioned in Matthew 24:21 with the wrath of God mentioned in Luke 21:23.

And you'd think I was committing the terrible sin of "using a strawman argument" because I apparently do not have the right to point out that Matthew 24:9-31 cannot be sliced up after Matthew 24:10 as though Matthew 24:11-31 is not talking about the same thing.

I've done my work, and I don't mind who dreams of nasty straw men chasing them around a field tonight because I won't be seeing any.

 

[DavidPT]

I'ts not a straw man argument to point out that someone is equating tribulation with God's wrath, especially since in Post #1, I gave a list of all New Testament verses talking about tribulation (thlipsis), including the only three that describe a specific period of tribulation with an adjective, i.e great tribulation (megas thlipsis).

If someone doesn't understand or pretends not to understand why Post #1 in this thread would apply to this discussion, or why I would say that tribulation and great tribulation cannot be equated with the wrath of God (whether with the wrath of God which came upon Jerusalem in 70 A.D, or the wrath of God still to come), then I'm done, because in light of Post #1 in this thread it's easy to see that It's definitely not a straw man argument to say that someone is conflating tribulation with God's wrath if they equate the tribulation mentioned in Matthew 24:21 with the wrath of God mentioned in Luke 21:23.

And you'd think I was committing the terrible sin of "using a strawman argument" because I apparently do not have the right to point out that Matthew 24:9-31 cannot be sliced up after Matthew 24:10 as though Matthew 24:11-31 is not talking about the same thing.

I've done my work, and I don't mind who dreams of nasty straw men chasing them around a field tonight because I won't be seeing any.

To be clear here, since the contention appears to be centered around you insisting Preterists are conflating Matthew 24:9 with the wrath on unbelieving Jews in the first century, you are meaning in the following way, right? By applying great tribulation to 70 AD when great tribulation is involving verse 9, is to then conflate verse 9 with God's wrath in 70 AD. And that this is not the same as you insisting Preterists are applying verse 9 to 70 AD.

To make my point clearer in regards to the latter above, let's take the great tribulation out of the equation altogether. IOW, let's assume Preterists are not equating great tribulation with 70 AD. Would you then still be insisting they are conflating verse 9 with 70 AD? Or is it because they are applying great tribulation to 70 AD, and that because great tribulation applies to verse 9, it is for those reasons that you are insisting they are conflating these things? If it is the latter reason that you are doing it, and not the former in this paragraph, assuming that scenario, meaning in regards to the former, then that should not equal a straw man, while the former in this paragraph should. The former would be misrepresenting their view if they weren't applying great tribulation to 70 AD, then still insisting they are conflating verse 9 with 70 AD, while the latter would be debunking their view since great tribulation being applicable to verse 9 not can't fit 70 AD. Therefore, great tribulation has zero to do with 70 AD.

 

[Zao is life]

To be clear here, since the contention appears to be centered around you insisting Preterists are conflating Matthew 24:9 with the wrath on unbelieving Jews in the first century, you are meaning in the following way, right? By applying great tribulation to 70 AD when great tribulation is involving verse 9, is to then conflate verse 9 with God's wrath in 70 AD. And that this is not the same as you insisting Preterists are applying verse 9 to 70 AD.

To make my point clearer in regards to the latter above, let's take the great tribulation out of the equation altogether. IOW, let's assume Preterists are not equating great tribulation with 70 AD. Would you then still be insisting they are conflating verse 9 with 70 AD? Or is it because they are applying great tribulation to 70 AD, and that because great tribulation applies to verse 9, it is for those reasons that you are insisting they are conflating these things? If it is the latter reason that you are doing it, and not the former in this paragraph, assuming that scenario, meaning in regards to the former, then that should not equal a straw man, while the former in this paragraph should. The former would be misrepresenting their view if they weren't applying great tribulation to 70 AD, then still insisting they are conflating verse 9 with 70 AD, while the latter would be debunking their view since great tribulation being applicable to verse 9 not can't fit 70 AD. Therefore, great tribulation has zero to do with 70 AD.

I repeatedly pointed out that the grammar chosen and used by the author of the gospel himself does not give any reader or student of the Bible the liberty to change what he clearly meant by using the grammar he chose, by slicing Matthew 24:9-31 up so that the reference to tribulation in Matthew 24:9 is referring to something else after Matthew 24:10. I repeatedly said that the grammar of the passage means that the tribulation mentioned in Matthew 24:21 is the same as the tribulation mentioned in Matthew 24:9:

I repeatedly said that ignoring the grammar causes those who do so to have the tribulation (and great tribulation) of the saints mentioned by Jesus in the passage, completely conflated with the wrath of God coming upon Jerusalem mentioned by Luke in Luke 21:23.

I also quoted the passage including its grammar and the Greek words used more than once:

From the beginning of Jesus' answer to His disciples about the sign of His coming and of the end of the Age (Matthew 24:3), Jesus begins first to speak about birth-pains, and about their tribulation:

9 Then [tote: at the time of (the end)] 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.
10 And [kai] then [tote] many will be offended, and will betray one another, and will hate one another.
11 And [kai] many false prophets will rise and deceive many.
12 And [kai] because iniquity shall abound, the love of many will become cold.
13 But [de] he who endures to the end, the same shall be kept safe.
14 And [kai] this gospel of the kingdom shall be proclaimed in all the world as a witness to all nations. And [kai] then [tote] the end shall come.
15 Therefore [oun] when you see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoever reads, let him understand).
16 Then [tote] let those in Judea flee into the mountains.
17 Let him on the housetop not come down to take anything out of his house;
18 nor let him in the field turn back to take his clothes.
19 And [kai] woe to those who are with child, and to those who give suck in those days!
20 But [de] pray that your flight is not in the winter, nor on the sabbath day;
21 for [gar] 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.
22 And [kai] unless those days should be shortened, no flesh would be saved. But for the elect's sake, those days shall be shortened.

.. it continues like this all the way through the passage.

With regards to verse 15, in Post #2 in this thread I gave the reason why what the reader is supposed to understand by the holy place (let the reader understand) is not a temple in Jerusalem that ceased being the holy place when Jesus died on the cross.

To refer to the building (hieron) in Jerusalem that ceased being the holy place the moment Jesus died is tantamount to apostasy from the truth that Jesus is the only temple of God:

Jesus answered and said to them, Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up. John 2:19.
​

Jesus' own words above, together with Acts 7:48 and Acts 17:24 and the facts mentioned in Post #2 in this thread are enough to tell us that the temple destroyed in 70 A.D was no longer the holy place:

Acts 7:48a
But, the Most High does not dwell in temples (Greek: naos) made with hands.

Acts 17:24
The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of Heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples (Greek naos) made with hands.

If someone does not understand or pretends not to understand Posts #1 and #2 which I placed up in this thread, or why it should have any bearing on the way we interpret Matthew 24:9-31, and then still claims I'm making a straw man argument by saying that Prets and Part Prets and Pre-Tribs are conflating tribulation with God's wrath (i.e either God's wrath that came upon Jerusalem in 70 A.D (as in the case of Prets and Part Prets) or with regard to God's wrath that is to come upon the world (in the case of Pre-Tribs), then let the reader of this thread decide what might be the motive for someone leveling a false accusation against me of creating a straw-man argument.

The very fact that I repeatedly said that Matthew 24:9-31 cannot be sliced up into different subjects after Matthew 24:10 because the grammar does not permit it, answers your question.

The wording in your post betrays the fact that you understood this before you asked me the question, but you are attempting to make it clear to the person who leveled the false accusation.

If that's your motive for asking me the question (when it's obvious through my posts what the answer is), give it up. Because the way the scribes and Pharisees nullified the Word of God by their man-made traditions and would not repent though Jesus Himself pointed it out to them, those who nullify the Word of God by their man-made theology will not change their minds either, but will hurl false accusations against you the moment you challenge their theology.

The people who point the finger the hardest at "what THEY (the scribes and Pharisees) did" are the ones who are most likely doing the same.​

 

[claninja]

To be clear here, since the contention appears to be centered around you insisting Preterists are conflating Matthew 24:9 with the wrath on unbelieving Jews in the first century, you are meaning in the following way, right? By applying great tribulation to 70 AD when great tribulation is involving verse 9, is to then conflate verse 9 with God's wrath in 70 AD. And that this is not the same as you insisting Preterists are applying verse 9 to 70 AD.

To make my point clearer in regards to the latter above, let's take the great tribulation out of the equation altogether. IOW, let's assume Preterists are not equating great tribulation with 70 AD. Would you then still be insisting they are conflating verse 9 with 70 AD? Or is it because they are applying great tribulation to 70 AD, and that because great tribulation applies to verse 9, it is for those reasons that you are insisting they are conflating these things? If it is the latter reason that you are doing it, and not the former in this paragraph, assuming that scenario, meaning in regards to the former, then that should not equal a straw man, while the former in this paragraph should. The former would be misrepresenting their view if they weren't applying great tribulation to 70 AD, then still insisting they are conflating verse 9 with 70 AD, while the latter would be debunking their view since great tribulation being applicable to verse 9 not can't fit 70 AD. Therefore, great tribulation has zero to do with 70 AD.

Ok, so do you believe the persecution of the disciples in luke 21:13-19 is the same as the days of vengeance and wrath on this people in luke 21:21-24?

 

[claninja]

I'ts not a straw man argument to point out that someone is equating tribulation with God's wrath, especially since in Post #1

No one said it’s a strawman to equate the great tribulation of Matthew 24:15-21 with the days of vengeance sin luke 21:21-24. What IS a strawman is you arguing preterism believes the persecution of the disciples in Matthew 21:9-10 is same as days of vengeance and wrath in luke 21:21-24 because preterism does not believe this.

Do you believe the persecution of the disciples in luke 21:13-19 is the same event as the days of wrath and vengeance in luke 21:13-19 since you believe the persecution of the disciples in Matthew 24:9-10 and the great tribulation in Matthew 24:15-21 are the same events? I’m assuming no, but based on your arguments against preterism, you may?

 

[DavidPT]

Ok, so do you believe the persecution of the disciples in luke 21:13-19 is the same as the days of vengeance and wrath on this people in luke 21:21-24?

If Luke 21:21-24 is involving what ultimately happened to the unbelieving Jews in 70 AD, then no I would not apply luke 21:13-19 to that. Even though there were Christians being persecuted, some killed, after Jesus ascended then up to 70 AD, I can't see this explaining that---For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.


In context, even though it says---that all things which are written may be fulfilled---it is only meaning in regards to these days of vengeance in question. These days of vengeance in question appear to be explained per the following, for one.

Matthew 22:7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.

The ones that are supposed to flee to the mountains are Christians in order to protect them from what is to happen to the city.

As to verse 9 in Matthew 24 which also involves the same period of time luke 21:13-19 is involving, in my mind, that is applicable to both before 70 AD and after 70 AD, the fact Matthew 10 also, for example, already proves it is applicable prior to 70 AD, yet that is not involving the days of vengeance, though. The days of vengeance have to do with what was to happen to unbelieving Jews and the city of Jerusalem. And that the days of vengeance is not great tribulation because great tribulation is involving wrath upon the church, not God's wrath upon the church, but satan's wrath upon the church via the beast and false prophet.

When I initially noticed your complaint against the OP in regards to conflating Matthew 24:9 with 70 AD and @Fullness of the Gentiles response to those complaints, I wasn't certain what to make of it. The reason why, it didn't make any sense to me why anyone would insist that someone is conflating verse 9 with 70 AD, since this was the first time I have ever heard of anyone doing that. As I thought about it further, I then began seeing your complaint as a legit complaint since no one in their right mind would intentionally apply verse 9 to 70 AD. Yet, I wasn't entirely finished with thinking this through yet.

As I thought through it more, it eventually dawned on me, the reason why @Fullness of the Gentiles is insisting that Preterists are conflating verse 9 with 70 AD is because Preterists are conflating great tribulation with 70 AD, and that verse 9 is what fits great tribulation not 70 AD. And even if one were to apply great tribulation to the church in the first century leading up to 70 AD, no way do those 40 years fit this---such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

And this last post I made to him, post #103, I was trying to clear all this up altogether by specifically saying and asking what I did. Except @Fullness of the Gentiles apparently took my post the wrong way and never even directly answered what I asked. Mainly meaning in regards to, if we took great tribulation out of the equation, assuming Preterists weren't applying great tribulation, would you still be insisting Preterists are conflating Matthew 24:9 with that of 70 AD. Had he just simply answered that and said no, there you go then, this proves he is not setting up a straw man nor misrepresenting Preterists, because if he was, it wouldn't matter to him whether Preterists are applying great tribulation to 70 AD or not, he would still be insisting Preterists are conflating verse 9 with 70 AD, regardless.

Therefore, it is only because Preterists conflate great tribulation with 70 AD that he is then insisting Preterists are conflating verse 9 with 70 AD and God's wrath upon unbelieving Jews at the time. Except he apparently thought my motive for making that post was something else, when all I was trying to do via that post was to put this dispute between him and Preterists to rest altogether in regards to this, since it would not be a straw man after all, though I didn't initially realize that to begin with, thus I had to think through it number of times to finally realize that, therefore, his argument involving verse 9 and 70 AD is valid if, for example, Preterists were not applying great tribulation to 70 AD, and that he is then not insisting Preterists are conflating verse 9 with 70 AD in that case. IOW, post #103, in my mind, was an opportunity for him to make this clear to anyone reading this thread and to anyone participating in this thread.

I'm human just like anyone else. I'm capable of initially misunderstanding something, then as I think through it further, multiple times sometimes, I am also capable of changing my mind back and forth about that same something until I eventually get it all ironed out in my mind.

Edited in order to try and fix some typos I made.

 

[claninja]

Therefore, it is only because Preterists conflate great tribulation with 70 AD that he is then insisting Preterists are conflating verse 9 with 70 AD and God's wrath upon unbelieving Jews at the time.

Right, which would be a strawman. Just because FOTG conflates Matthew 24:9-10 with Matthew 24:15-21, doesn’t mean preterism does.

That would be like me claiming FOTG conflates the days of wrath (luke 21:23) with the persecution of the saints (matthew 24:9-10), because I personally believe the great tribulation (matthew 24:15-21) = the days of wrath (luke 21:23), and he conflates the persecution of the saints (matthew 24:9-10) with the great tribulation (matthew 24:15-21).

What should be left out all together is the “conflating” argument. I know FOTG and you (I think) conflate the persecution of the saints in Matthew 24:9-10 with the great tribulation in Matthew 24:15-21, but that doesn’t mean I believe you conflate the great tribulation with the days of wrath in luke 21:23, just because I personally believe the days of wrath are the same as the great tribulation.

I would be much more interested in a conversation about why Matthew 24:15-21 should be conflated with Matthew 24:9-10, without the strawman against preterism.


So if you’re interested, why should Matthew 24:9-10 be understood as same event as Matthew 24:15-21? And is there any serious scholarship that does the same?

 

[Zao is life]

No one said it’s a strawman to equate the great tribulation of Matthew 24:15-21 with the days of vengeance sin luke 21:21-24. What IS a strawman is you arguing preterism believes the persecution of the disciples in Matthew 21:9-10 is same as days of vengeance and wrath in luke 21:21-24 because preterism does not believe this.

Do you believe the persecution of the disciples in luke 21:13-19 is the same event as the days of wrath and vengeance in luke 21:13-19 since you believe the persecution of the disciples in Matthew 24:9-10 and the great tribulation in Matthew 24:15-21 are the same events? I’m assuming no, but based on your arguments against preterism, you may?

In your question above you have once again chosen to conflate the persecution and tribulation of the disciples of Jesus mentioned in Matthew 24:9 and Matthew 24:21 (where Matthew 24:21 describes it as great tribulation), and Luke's mention of the same thing in Luke 21:11-19, and the disciples' redemption from it mentioned in Matthew 24:29-31, Luke 21:11 & Luke 21:25-28,

with the wrath of God that came upon Jerusalem mentioned in Luke 21:20-24, where Luke 21:23 specifically calls what came upon Jerusalem "wrath" (not tribulation).

The false dichotomy of associating the persecution and tribulation of the disciples of Jesus mentioned in Luke 21:11-19, Matthew 24:15-31 (which began to be spoken about in Matthew 24:9-14) with the wrath of God that came upon Jerusalem mentioned in Luke 21:20-24 (where Luke 21:23 specifically calls it wrath, not tribulation) is yours.

And by your question above you have once again betrayed the fact that you have the tribulation and persecution of the disciples of Jesus conflated with God's wrath - and the fact that you have sliced apart one and the same discourse about the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus mentioned in Matthew 24:21, Matthew 24:29, Matthew 24:9, and Luke 21:11-19) and imagined that one part of it is referring to the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus and another part to the wrath of God, is betraying the basis of your confused eschatology.​

 

[Zao is life]

If Luke 21:21-24 is involving what ultimately happened to the unbelieving Jews in 70 AD, then no I would not apply luke 21:13-19 to that. Even though there were Christians being persecuted, some killed, after Jesus ascended then up to 70 AD, I can't see this explaining that---For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.


In context, even though it says---that all things which are written may be fulfilled---it is only meaning in regards to these days of vengeance in question. These days of vengeance in question appear to be explained per the following, for one.

Matthew 22:7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.

The ones that are supposed to flee to the mountains are Christians in order to protect them from what is to happen to the city.

As to verse 9 in Matthew 24 which also involves the same period of time luke 21:13-19 is involving, in my mind, that is applicable to both before 70 AD and after 70 AD, the fact Matthew 10 also, for example, already proves it is applicable prior to 70 AD, yet that is not involving the days of vengeance, though. The days of vengeance have to do with what was to happen to unbelieving Jews and the city of Jerusalem. And that the days of vengeance is not great tribulation because great tribulation is involving wrath upon the church, not God's wrath upon the church, but satan's wrath upon the church via the beast and false prophet.

When I initially noticed your complaint against the OP in regards to conflating Matthew 24:9 with 70 AD and @Fullness of the Gentiles response to those complaints, I wasn't certain what to make of it. The reason why, it didn't make any sense to me why anyone would insist that someone is conflating verse 9 with 70 AD, since this was the first time I have ever heard of anyone doing that. As I thought about it further, I then began seeing your complaint as a legit complaint since no one in their right mind would intentionally apply verse 9 to 70 AD. Yet, I wasn't entirely finished with thinking this through yet.

As I thought through it more, it eventually dawned on me, the reason why @Fullness of the Gentiles is insisting that Preterists are conflating verse 9 with 70 AD is because Preterists are conflating great tribulation with 70 AD, and that verse 9 is what fits great tribulation not 70 AD. And even if one were to apply great tribulation to the church in the first century leading up to 70 AD, no way do those 40 years fit this---such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

And this last post I made to him, post #103, I was trying to clear all this up altogether by specifically saying and asking what I did. Except @Fullness of the Gentiles apparently took my post the wrong way and never even directly answered what I asked. Mainly meaning in regards to, if we took great tribulation out of the equation, assuming Preterists weren't applying great tribulation, would you still be insisting Preterists are conflating Matthew 24:9 with that of 70 AD. Had he just simply answered that and said no, there you go then, this proves he is not setting up a straw man nor misrepresenting Preterists, because if he was, it wouldn't matter to him whether Preterists are applying great tribulation to 70 AD or not, he would still be insisting Preterists are conflating verse 9 with 70 AD, regardless.

Therefore, it is only because Preterists conflate great tribulation with 70 AD that he is then insisting Preterists are conflating verse 9 with 70 AD and God's wrath upon unbelieving Jews at the time. Except he apparently thought my motive for making that post was something else, when all I was trying to do via that post was to put this dispute between him and Preterists to rest altogether in regards to this, since it would not be a straw man after all, though I didn't initially realize that to begin with, thus I had to think through it number of times to finally realize that, therefore, his argument involving verse 9 and 70 AD is valid if, for example, Preterists were not applying great tribulation to 70 AD, and that he is then not insisting Preterists are conflating verse 9 with 70 AD in that case. IOW, post #103, in my mind, was an opportunity for him to make this clear to anyone reading this thread and to anyone participating in this thread.

I'm human just like anyone else. I'm capable of initially misunderstanding something, then as I think through it further, multiple times sometimes, I am also capable of changing my mind back and forth about that same something until I eventually get it all ironed out in my mind.

Edited in order to try and fix some typos I made.

What @claninja actually wants me to do is to agree with his own false dichotomy and assertion that the tribulation of the disciples mentioned in Matthew 24:9 is not the same as the tribulation of the disciples mentioned in Matthew 24:21, and Luke 21:11-19, and the disciples' redemption from it that is mentioned in Matthew 24:29-31, Luke 21:11 & Luke 21:25-28.

He wants me to do this because he knows that the moment I divorce one and the same period of tribulation that is mentioned in Matthew 24:9-31 so as to pretend it's speaking about two different things (the way Prets and Part Prets do), then my assertion that he and all Prets and Part Prets are conflating the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus with the wrath of God that came upon Jerusalem in 70 A.D, becomes a straw-man argument.

I will not divorce what I know belongs together. Period.

And what you (David) don't realize is that you are attempting to get me to do this "for agreement's sake" (which is comprising, so as to mix truth with error). I'm 100% sure you never realized this. But now that I've told you, don't try and 'help me' to change what I'm saying about this again, please, because I will not divorce what I know belongs together for the sake of compromise.

 

[Zao is life]

Right, which would be a strawman. Just because FOTG conflates Matthew 24:9-10 with Matthew 24:15-21, doesn’t mean preterism does.

That would be like me claiming FOTG conflates the days of wrath (luke 21:23) with the persecution of the saints (matthew 24:9-10), because I personally believe the great tribulation (matthew 24:15-21) = the days of wrath (luke 21:23), and he conflates the persecution of the saints (matthew 24:9-10) with the great tribulation (matthew 24:15-21).

What should be left out all together is the “conflating” argument. I know FOTG and you (I think) conflate the persecution of the saints in Matthew 24:9-10 with the great tribulation in Matthew 24:15-21, but that doesn’t mean I believe you conflate the great tribulation with the days of wrath in luke 21:23, just because I personally believe the days of wrath are the same as the great tribulation.

I would be much more interested in a conversation about why Matthew 24:15-21 should be conflated with Matthew 24:9-10, without the strawman against preterism.


So if you’re interested, why should Matthew 24:9-10 be understood as same event as Matthew 24:15-21? And is there any serious scholarship that does the same?

Just because Prets and Part-Prets have divorced what belongs together (the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus mentioned in Matthew 24:9, Matthew 24:21, and Luke 21:12-18), does not mean that all Christians have to do the same, nor does it mean that mentioning the fact that you have the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus conflated with God's wrath that came upon Jerusalem is a straw-man argument.

You only arrive at the conclusion of "straw-man argument" subsequent to your divorcing of what belongs together. There is no "conflating" in the text or by the grammar used in the text by the author of the gospel of Matthew 24:9-10 with the rest of the passage (Matthew 24:11-31). You have to either change the rules of English grammar OR the grammar used in the passage, as well as the context of tribulation throughout the New Testament (see Post #1) to come up with such a divorce of what belongs together.

Why you can't understand that the title of this thread is not a straw-man to anyone who refuses to divorce what belongs together, and only a straw-man to those who have divorced what belongs together, is another thing that only you can explain.

Request: Please read Post #1 in this thread carefully, and then come back and tell me why the tribulation (Greek; thlipsis) mentioned in Matthew 24:9 and Matthew 24:21 and Matthew 24:29 should be taken to be referring to the wrath (Greek: orge) of God that came upon Jerusalem in 70 A.D mentioned in Luke 21:23.

I will simply repeat the same request above if you do not do so in your next post, because it's very telling the way you keep avoiding Post #1, which shows the consistent distinction the New Testament makes between all New Testament references to tribulation on the one hand and God's wrath on the other, very telling indeed.

 

[claninja]

In your question above you have once again chosen to conflate the persecution and tribulation of the disciples of Jesus mentioned in Matthew 24:9 and Matthew 24:21 (where Matthew 24:21 describes it as great tribulation), and Luke's mention of the same thing in Luke 21:11-19, and the disciples' redemption from it mentioned in Matthew 24:29-31, Luke 21:11 & Luke 21:25-28,

with the wrath of God that came upon Jerusalem mentioned in Luke 21:20-24, where Luke 21:23 specifically calls what came upon Jerusalem "wrath" (not tribulation).

The false dichotomy of associating the persecution and tribulation of the disciples of Jesus mentioned in Luke 21:11-19, Matthew 24:15-31 (which began to be spoken about in Matthew 24:9-14) with the wrath of God that came upon Jerusalem mentioned in Luke 21:20-24 (where Luke 21:23 specifically calls it wrath, not tribulation) is yours.

And by your question above you have once again betrayed the fact that you have the tribulation and persecution of the disciples of Jesus conflated with God's wrath - and the fact that you have sliced apart one and the same discourse about the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus mentioned in Matthew 24:21, Matthew 24:29, Matthew 24:9, and Luke 21:11-19) and imagined that one part of it is referring to the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus and another part to the wrath of God, is betraying the basis of your confused eschatology.​

This Doesn’t answer my question. Do you believe the persecution of the saints in luke 21:13-19 is the same as the days of wrath in luke 21:21-24?

 

[claninja]

What @claninja actually wants me to do is to agree with his own false dichotomy and assertion that the tribulation of the disciples mentioned in Matthew 24:9 is not the same as the tribulation of the disciples mentioned in Matthew 24:21, and Luke 21:11-19, and the disciples' redemption from it that is mentioned in Matthew 24:29-31, Luke 21:11 & Luke 21:25-28.

He wants me to do this because he knows that the moment I divorce one and the same period of tribulation that is mentioned in Matthew 24:9-31 so as to pretend it's speaking about two different things (the way Prets and Part Prets do), then my assertion that he and all Prets and Part Prets are conflating the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus with the wrath of God that came upon Jerusalem in 70 A.D, becomes a straw-man argument.

I will not divorce what I know belongs together. Period.

And what you (David) don't realize is that you are attempting to get me to do this "for agreement's sake" (which is comprising, so as to mix truth with error). I'm 100% sure you never realized this. But now that I've told you, don't try and 'help me' to change what I'm saying about this again, please, because I will not divorce what I know belongs together for the sake of compromise.

I never asked you agree with preterism. So that’s not true. I simply asked you to recognize that preterism does not conflate the persecution of the saints in matthew 24:9-10 with the great tribulation in Matthew 24:15-21.

 

[claninja]

Request: Please read Post #1 in this thread carefully, and then come back and tell me why the tribulation (Greek; thlipsis) mentioned in Matthew 24:9 and Matthew 24:21 and Matthew 24:29 should be taken to be referring to the wrath (Greek: orge) of God that came upon Jerusalem in 70 A.D mentioned in Luke 21:23.

I don’t believe the tribulation in Matthew 24:9-10 should be taken to referring to the days of wrath in luke 21:23. Instead, I believe the persecution of the disciples in Matthew 24:9-10 refers to the persecution of the saints in luke 21:13-19 because i believe the OD in Matthew and Luke are parallel accounts

I do believe the great tribulation of Matthew 24:15-21 should be taken to be days of vengeance and wrath in luke 21:20-23, because I believe the OD in Matthew and Luke are parallel accounts.

Do you believe the persecution of the disciples in luke 21:13-19 = the days of wrath in luke 21:20-24?

 

[claninja]

I will simply repeat the same request above if you do not do so in your next post, because it's very telling the way you keep avoiding Post #1, which shows the consistent distinction the New Testament makes between all New Testament references to tribulation on the one hand and God's wrath on the other, very telling indeed.

Since you believe the “grammar” of then, but, therefore, etc…. Demonstrates that the persecution of the saints in Matthew 24:9-10 = the great tribulation of Matthew 24:15-21 (of which no serious scholarship agrees), then I’m going to assume that you believe the persecution of the saints in luke 21:13-19 = the days of wrath in luke 21:20-23 because of the grammar then, correct?

 

[Zao is life]

This Doesn’t answer my question. Do you believe the persecution of the saints in luke 21:13-19 is the same as the days of wrath in luke 21:21-24?

Why do you conflate Tribulation of the disciples with the wrath of God? See Post #1

You do not answer any questions, then expect others to answer questions you throw out.

So one thing at a time, because you have kept side-stepping these two things:

1. Bearing in mind that the New Testament does not associate thlipsis (tribulation) with God's wrath (see Post #1); and
2. Bearing in mind the accepted normal use of English grammar and the grammar used by the author of Matthew's gospel from verse 9 to verse 31,

Why do you believe the tribulation mentioned in Matthew 24:21 and Matthew 24:29 is not speaking about the same tribulation mentioned in Matthew 24:9? By what rule of exegesis and of English grammar do you divorce the passage into two parts?

Answer please, without side-stepping either 1 or 2 above, then I will answer you AGAIN about Luke (because I already have in a previous post, and in previous posts).

 

[DavidPT]

Do you believe the persecution of the disciples in luke 21:13-19 = the days of wrath in luke 21:20-24?

Speaking for myself, I reason it like such.

Luke 21:21 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.


The way the text reads to me, it is when they are to flee to the mountains being when the days of vengeance begin.

Luke 21:12 But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake.
13 And it shall turn to you for a testimony.
14 Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer:
15 For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.
16 And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death.
17 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake.
18 But there shall not an hair of your head perish.
19 In your patience possess ye your souls.

And that this is meaning before anyone is to flee to the mountains. Obviously, if one is being delivered up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers, they couldn't be fleeing to the mountains at the same time. Therefore, it doesn't make sense that verses 12-19 are involving what verses 21-22 are involving.

You're probably thinking, though I'm not a mind reader, in order to remain consistent, one should be treating Matthew 24 in the same manner, that verse 9 is meaning before what verses 15-21 are involving, therefore, verse 9 is not connected with what verses 15-21 are involving. On the surface that appears reasonable, but if we compare to Daniel 12 though, Daniel 12:2 proves we have to treat this account differently than how we treat the account involving Luke 21.

And some reasons why are this. In Luke 21 verse 20 and 21 are involving what happened in 70 AD. And that if we also make Matthew 24:15-21 involving 70 AD, Daniel 12:2 is contradicting that the fact no resurrection of the dead event ever followed 70 AD. In Daniel 12 it involves an AOD, and during that AOD it involves a time of trouble unequaled in history. And so does Matthew 24:15-21.

Some interpreters make nonsense out of Matthew 24:15-21 and Daniel 12 by insisting the following are not involving the same events, same time period---For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be(Matthew 24:21)--- and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time(Daniel 12:1)

According to Matthew 24 since it makes it undeniably crystal clear, this time of trouble is involving an AOD, which then tells us that in Daniel 12 that the AOD mentioned in verse 11, this is involving the time of trouble in verse 1. And that Daniel 12:2 informs us that a resurrection of the dead follows this time of trouble. Therefore, based on this alone, what Luke 21:20-21 is involving can't be what Matthew 24:15-21 is involving because it is Matthew 24:15-21 that is involving what Daniel 12:1, 11 is involving, and that Daniel 12:2 records that a resurrection of the dead event follows this unequaled time of trouble.

 

[Zao is life]

Since you believe the “grammar” of then, but, therefore, etc…. Demonstrates that the persecution of the saints in Matthew 24:9-10 = the great tribulation of Matthew 24:15-21 (of which no serious scholarship agrees), then I’m going to assume that you believe the persecution of the saints in luke 21:13-19 = the days of wrath in luke 21:20-23 because of the grammar then, correct?

Please answer the questions in Post #116 instead of sidestepping them with red herrings like the above. What other people say is not answering the questions asked of you. Not all scholars agree anyway, and there is no difference between "serious" scholars and scholars. But what other people's commentaries say is not what this thread is about. It is you who needs to give an answer as to why you divorce tribulation from tribulation.

 

[Zao is life]

Since you believe the “grammar” of then, but, therefore, etc…. Demonstrates that the persecution of the saints in Matthew 24:9-10 = the great tribulation of Matthew 24:15-21

, then I’m going to assume that you believe the persecution of the saints in luke 21:13-19 = the days of wrath in luke 21:20-23 because of the grammar then, correct?

@claninja It is a false assumption and you have deliberately made that false assumption because I've already answered that question in a previous post, before I was even asked a question like that.

Why should I repeat myself just because you feel like pretending that I never said that Luke makes it very clear when he is talking to the disciples about the persecution they would experience on one hand, and when he talks about the wrath of God that was to come upon Jerusalem on the other hand?

It's a ridiculous analogy you make and it does not work, because there is as much of a difference in Luke 21 between the words persecution (of the disciples) and wrath (of God upon Jerusalem) as there is in Matthew 24:9-31 - except that Matthew does not even use the word wrath even once in Matthew 24:9-31, because he is not talking even once about God's wrath that was to come upon Jerusalem.

I already said the above in a previous post, and your false question and false likening of the one to the other is just another side-stepping red herring on your part. Repeatedly asking me to repeat what I already said just so that you do not have to answer the questions.

@claninja Please explain why you do not divorce Luke's mention of persecution (of the disciples of Jesus) from Luke's mention of the persecution in Luke 21, yet you divorce Matthew's mention of the tribulation (of the disciples of Jesus) from Matthew's mention of tribulation in Matthew 24.

(Please answer the question).

 

[Zao is life]

@claninja all you have done in this thread is demonstrate how you conflate the persecution and tribulation of the disciples of Jesus with wrath:

1. Preterists and Partial-Preterists have conflated the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus (Matthew 24:9-31) with God's wrath (Luke 21:23).

2. Likewise, Pre-tribulationsists have conflated the great tribulation with the wrath of God, albeit for a different reason.

Referring to the judgement of God that is prophesied to come upon the world (and which is produced by His wrath) as "the tribulation", or as "the great tribulation" is a complete and utter misnomer. Here's why:

Here are ALL New Testament references to tribulation experienced by non-Christians:-

1. Of all who do evil: Romans 2:9.
2. Of the world as repayment for bringing tribulation upon the saints: 2 Thessalonians 1:6.

There are no other New Testament mentions of tribulation as the experience of those who are not Christians.

TRIBULATION AND PERSECUTION EXPERIENCED BY CHRISTIANS

Persecution: Of Jesus: John 5:16

Of Christians: Matthew 5:10-12; John 15:20; Acts 22:4; Acts 26:11; 1 Corinthians 4:12; 1 Corinthians 15:9; 2 Corinthians 4:9; Galatians 1:13 & 23; Galatians 4:29; Galatians 5:11

Of the woman who gave birth to the Messiah: Revelation 12:13

Tribulation: Of apostles or Christians:

Matthew 13:21 (Parallel: Mark 4:17); Matthew 24:9, 21 & 29 (Parallel Mark 13:19, 24); John 16:33; Acts 11:19; Acts 14:22; Acts 20:23; Romans 5:3; Romans 8:35; Romans 12:12; 2 Corinthians 1:4, 6 & 8; 2 Corinthians 2:4; 2 Corinthians 4:8; 2 Corinthians 4:17; 2 Corinthians 6:4; 2 Corinthians 7:4-5; 2 Corinthians 8:2; Ephesians 3:13; Philippians 1:16; Philippians 4:14; Colossians 1:24; 1 Thessalonians 1:6; 1 Thessalonians 3:3-4 & 7; 2 Thessalonians 1:4, 6-7; 2 Timothy 1:8; 2 Timothy 3:11; 2 Timothy 4:5; Hebrews 10:32-33; 1 Peter 5:9; Revelation 1:9; Revelation 2:9-10, 22; Revelation 7:14

Great Tribulation

Mentioned only three times in the New Testament, and each time it's the experience of Christians:

Revelation 2:22; Revelation 7:14; 'Olivet Discourse': Matthew 24:21 *

* Luke 21:23 uses the words "great distress" [anánkē] and "wrath" [orgḗ] to describe what was to come upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem when the city and temple were destroyed (not the word tribulation).

I remain very interested to know why you do not divorce the persecution (of the disciples of Jesus) from persecution in Luke 21, but divorce the tribulation (of the disciples of Jesus) from tribulation in Matthew 24.