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

[Zao is life]

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.

Even without Daniel 12, there is no consistency in what Prets and Part Prets argue, because they do not divorce persecution (of the disciples of Jesus) from persecution in Luke 21, yet they divorce tribulation (of the disciples of Jesus) from tribulation in Matthew 24, and on top of this they make the (false) assumption, despite the grammar of the passage and the facts regarding what tribulation and persecution always refer to in the New Testament, that the second and third mentions of tribulation in Matthew 24 is speaking about wrath, not tribulation.

This is also despite the fact that in Luke's gospel, Luke makes it abundantly clear that he is not talking about the persecution or tribulation of the disciples of Jesus in Luke 21:20-24 and uses the word wrath, not tribulation or persecution, in Luke 21:23.

Prets and Part Prets as well as Pre-tribs have read into (eisgeses) Matthew 24:21 a wrath of God that does not exist in the passage in Matthew by divorcing tribulation (of the disciples of Jesus) from tribulation in Matthew 24, but not divorcing persecution (of the disciples of Jesus) from persecution in Luke 21.

 

[claninja]

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).

See post 114. Already answered this. Preterism doesn’t conflate the persecution of the saints in Matthew 24:9-10 with the days of wrath and vengeance in luke 21:30-23.

 

[claninja]

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?

The very same grammar is used in luke 21:13-24, and you don’t conflate the persecution of the saints in luke 21:13-19 with Luke 21:20-24. So i don’t understand your argument of “grammar” when it comes to Matthew 24:9-10 and Matthew 24:21.

 

[claninja]

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.

I know not all serious scholarship agrees that Matthew 24:21 is in regards to 70ad, but is still a future tribulation. But there is ZERO serious scholarship that argues that the persecution of the saints in Matthew 24:9-10 = the great tribulation of Matthew 24:21.

 

[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.

Oh the irony…. @DavidPT .

Apparently it’s ok for FOTG to misrepresent someone’s belief, but when i ask a clarifying question it’s a “false assumption”…lol ok

 

[claninja]

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?

How is the grammar different in Luke’s OD than matthews OD, for you to conflate the persecution of the saints with the great tribulation in Matthew but divorce the persecution of the saints with the days of wrath in luke?

 

[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.

Already answered in post 114. I believe the OD in Matthew and Luke are parallel accounts. I’ll repeat:

Thus the persecution of the saints in Matthew 24:9-10 = the persecution of the saints in luke 21:13-19

Thus the great tribulation in Matthew 24:15-21 = the days of wrath and vengeance in luke 21:20-24.

 

[Zao is life]

Already answered in post 114. I believe the OD in Matthew and Luke are parallel accounts. I’ll repeat:

Thus the persecution of the saints in Matthew 24:9-10 = the persecution of the saints in luke 21:13-19

Thus the great tribulation in Matthew 24:15-21 = the days of wrath and vengeance in luke 21:20-24.

Thus the persecution/tribulation of the disciples of Jesus mentioned in Matthew 24:9 & 21 and Luke 21:11-18 = the wrath of God coming upon Jerusalem in 70 A.D, according to your dichotomy.

 

[DavidPT]

But there is ZERO serious scholarship that argues that the persecution of the saints in Matthew 24:9-10 = the great tribulation of Matthew 24:21.

Maybe @Fullness of the Gentiles sees it a bit differently, and that's fine if he does, that if he doesn't see the following being a possibility, but why can't verse 9 and 10 be applicable to both before and after 70 AD?

And if it can, and if verse 21 is meaning in the end of this age, why can't verse 9 and 10 be applicable to verse 21 in that case? Obviously, unless one is a Pretribber or a Dispensationalist, no one is going to be applying verse 21 to God's wrath on unbelieving Jews in the 21st century.

And something else to factor in here. If verse 21 is involving the end of this age, verse 29 and Revelation 6 both prove that it is not involving God's wrath, because it is during the 6th seal when God's wrath begins, and that verse 21 is meaning before the 6th seal.

Preterists and Pretribbers have something in common involving Matthew 24:15-21. Both positions have those verses involving God's wrath on unbelieving Jews, and that it is involving the day of the Lord. Except no matter how you look at it, unless we want to insist Jesus was wrong per Matthew 24:29, that John was wrong per Revelation 6, God's wrath is not during great tribulation, it is after great tribulation. This presents a problem for Matthew 24 if we apply verse 21 to that of God's wrath pertaining to Luke 21:20-23. The reason it does is because it contradicts what verse 29 records, what Revelation 6 records, that it is after great tribulation when God's wrath commences. And that we then have to factor this in, the following below.


a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled(Revelation 6:11)

Obviously, this is meaning during the 5th seal when this little seaon is meaning. And obviously as well, no one would conflate any of this with wrath upon unbelieving Jews in the first century involving 70 AD. Which then is telling us that God's wrath is poured out two different times, and for two different reasons. The first time involving wrath upon unbelieving Jews in the first century pertaining to 70 AD. The 2nd time, in the end of this age pertaining to the persecuting of His church. Which means God allows His church to be persecuted, but at a certain point, enough is enough, now it's time to repay that persecution, thus the day of the Lord. IMO, the day of the Lord does not and cannot fit during Matthew 24:15-21, it fits during the 6th seal, meaning verse 29 in Matthew 24, meaning verses 12-17 in Revelation 6, which then eventually involves the 7th trumpet in Revelation 11, and the last 7 vials of wrath in Revelation 16.

 

[DavidPT]

See post 114. Already answered this. Preterism doesn’t conflate the persecution of the saints in Matthew 24:9-10 with the days of wrath and vengeance in luke 21:30-23.

Does that mean per your perspective that what @Fullness of the Gentiles said below that I have quoted from his post, that this would be untrue then? Some of this is confusing to me, since I don't think anyone wants to intentionally misrepresent someone's view. So, I'm trying to figure out what to make of some of this.

there is no consistency in what Prets and Part Prets argue, because they do not divorce persecution (of the disciples of Jesus) from persecution in Luke 21, yet they divorce tribulation (of the disciples of Jesus) from tribulation in Matthew 24

 

[Zao is life]

Maybe @Fullness of the Gentiles sees it a bit differently, and that's fine if he does, that if he doesn't see the following being a possibility, but why can't verse 9 and 10 be applicable to both before and after 70 AD?

And if it can, and if verse 21 is meaning in the end of this age, why can't verse 9 and 10 be applicable to verse 21 in that case? Obviously, unless one is a Pretribber or a Dispensationalist, no one is going to be applying verse 21 to God's wrath on unbelieving Jews in the 21st century.

And something else to factor in here. If verse 21 is involving the end of this age, verse 29 and Revelation 6 both prove that it is not involving God's wrath, because it is during the 6th seal when God's wrath begins, and that verse 21 is meaning before the 6th seal.

Preterists and Pretribbers have something in common involving Matthew 24:15-21. Both positions have those verses involving God's wrath on unbelieving Jews, and that it is involving the day of the Lord. Except no matter how you look at it, unless we want to insist Jesus was wrong per Matthew 24:29, that John was wrong per Revelation 6, God's wrath is not during great tribulation, it is after great tribulation. This presents a problem for Matthew 24 if we apply verse 21 to that of God's wrath pertaining to Luke 21:20-23. The reason it does is because it contradicts what verse 29 records, what Revelation 6 records, that it is after great tribulation when God's wrath commences. And that we then have to factor this in, the following below.


a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled(Revelation 6:11)

Obviously, this is meaning during the 5th seal when this little seaon is meaning. And obviously as well, no one would conflate any of this with wrath upon unbelieving Jews in the first century involving 70 AD. Which then is telling us that God's wrath is poured out two different times, and for two different reasons. The first time involving wrath upon unbelieving Jews in the first century pertaining to 70 AD. The 2nd time, in the end of this age pertaining to the persecuting of His church. Which means God allows His church to be persecuted, but at a certain point, enough is enough, now it's time to repay that persecution, thus the day of the Lord. IMO, the day of the Lord does not and cannot fit during Matthew 24:15-21, it fits during the 6th seal, meaning verse 29 in Matthew 24, meaning verses 12-17 in Revelation 6, which then eventually involves the 7th trumpet in Revelation 11, and the last 7 vials of wrath in Revelation 16.

I agree, except that

1. I'm not sure about whether the 1st bowl of wrath only begins to be poured out after the resurrection, for a number of reasons that are not pertinent to this thread, so I'll leave that for another discussion some time.You could be right, though, I'm just saying I'm not sure for a number of reasons.
2. Matthew 24:9 is preceded by birth pains involving ethnos (nation) rising up against ethnos (nation), and kingdom against kingdom, famines, earthquakes and pestilences. Mentioned in all three synoptic gospels. Luke speaks about signs in the heavens right from the start. Matthew says that at the time of (the end) (Greek tote, translated as "Then"), the disciples of Jesus will be delivered up to tribulation (thlipsis) and killed, and that the disciples will be hated of all nations for Jesus' name's sake, and at this time (tote, translated as "then") many will be offended, and will betray one another.

We don't know how much betraying of one another (if any) on the part of the disciples of Jesus was taking place during the days of the destruction of Jerusalem's temple, and this time followed on the heals of Nero's persecution of the Christians, but Matthew 24:15 links the AoD standing in the holy place to the same time of the tribulation of the saints by using the word oun (therefore) ... and the temple was destroyed soon after the death of Nero.

Indeed, the whole passage from verse 9 onward is linked to verses 29-31 by Matthew's use of the Greek words which translate (correctly) into English as “then”, “and”, “but”, “therefore”, “for”, and “immediately after”.

But to me it's also like Matthew 10:16-42. Those instructions in Matthew 10:16-42 were given to the twelve when they were sent out to the lost sheep of the house of Israel only, but obviously would apply equally to their later missionary journeys when they took the gospel first to the Jews, then to the Gentiles - to all nations. They apply to all missionaries since then. So when the disciples of Jesus were suffering great tribulation under the hand of Nero, they would have been looking to the gospels and to the Olivet Discourse, as well as to Paul's letters to the Thessalonians for answers - and they would have believed they were living in the last days before the return of Christ. The book of Revelation had not yet been written, since there is no evidence John had already been banished to Patmos by 70 A.D, but only later.

So in that sense I agree with you - Jesus gives instructions and warnings about things that are coming to all generations - and His messages to the seven churches fall into this category also.

But the holy place in 70 A.D was the body of Christ (Post #2 in this thread). Personally I find it shocking that anyone could regard the mention of the holy place in Matthew 24:15 as a reference to the building in Jerusalem where animals were still be sacrificed as sin offerings to God, ignoring also the fact that the word therefore and the grammar of the passage links it to the tribulation of the disciples mentioned in verse 9, and the great tribulation mentioned in verses 21 and 29. And also because great tribulation in the New Testament is not referring to the wrath of God (Post #1 in this thread).

But we are on the same page with regard to your above post and what you say about the Revelaton.

 

[claninja]

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.

Parallel accounts. Matthew was written to a primary Jewish audience, while Luke was was written to a more gentile audience. Luke associates the armies surrounding with Jerusalem with the AOD. Luke tells his gentile audience what the AOD is.

BOTH accounts have the disciples being persecuted prior to the warning to flee judea. So i agree that it doesn’t make sense to for luke 21:12-19 to be understood as the same event as luke 21:20-24. It also doesn’t make sense to understand Matthew 24:9-10 as the same event as matthew 24:15-21.

Matthew 24:15-16 15So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination of desolation,’adescribed by the prophet Daniel (let the reader understand), 16then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

Luke 21:20-21 20But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, you will know that her desolation is near. 21Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains,

Daniel 12 is part of a larger vision that starts in chapter 11. The vision begins in the times of the Persians and goes all the way to the awakening of those to eternal life and those to eternal condemnation. 1.) Where do you place the gap in that vision? 2.) where does Matthew or Luke OD specifically mention the bodily resurrection of the dead?

 

[claninja]

Does that mean per your perspective that what @Fullness of the Gentiles said below that I have quoted from his post, that this would be untrue then? Some of this is confusing to me, since I don't think anyone wants to intentionally misrepresent someone's view. So, I'm trying to figure out what to make of some of this.

I honestly don’t really know what FOTG is saying there.

Prets believe the persecution of the disciples in luke 21:12-19 is a different event than the days of wrath in luke 21:20-24. Now because prets also believe that Matthew and Luke are parallel accounts, they believe the persecution of the disciple in Matthew 24:9-10 is also a different event than the great tribulation in Matthew 24:15-21.

To make it clear preterism (and other eschatological schools as demonstrated by scholars such as ellicot, John Calvin, Barnes, John gill, Adam Clarke, Bengel, etc.. ) believes the great tribulation in Matthew 24:15-21 = the destruction of Jerusalem.

 

[claninja]

Maybe @Fullness of the Gentiles sees it a bit differently, and that's fine if he does, that if he doesn't see the following being a possibility, but why can't verse 9 and 10 be applicable to both before and after 70 AD?

And if it can, and if verse 21 is meaning in the end of this age, why can't verse 9 and 10 be applicable to verse 21 in that case? Obviously, unless one is a Pretribber or a Dispensationalist, no one is going to be applying verse 21 to God's wrath on unbelieving Jews in the 21st century.

And something else to factor in here. If verse 21 is involving the end of this age, verse 29 and Revelation 6 both prove that it is not involving God's wrath, because it is during the 6th seal when God's wrath begins, and that verse 21 is meaning before the 6th seal.

Preterists and Pretribbers have something in common involving Matthew 24:15-21. Both positions have those verses involving God's wrath on unbelieving Jews, and that it is involving the day of the Lord. Except no matter how you look at it, unless we want to insist Jesus was wrong per Matthew 24:29, that John was wrong per Revelation 6, God's wrath is not during great tribulation, it is after great tribulation. This presents a problem for Matthew 24 if we apply verse 21 to that of God's wrath pertaining to Luke 21:20-23. The reason it does is because it contradicts what verse 29 records, what Revelation 6 records, that it is after great tribulation when God's wrath commences. And that we then have to factor this in, the following below.


a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled(Revelation 6:11)

Obviously, this is meaning during the 5th seal when this little seaon is meaning. And obviously as well, no one would conflate any of this with wrath upon unbelieving Jews in the first century involving 70 AD. Which then is telling us that God's wrath is poured out two different times, and for two different reasons. The first time involving wrath upon unbelieving Jews in the first century pertaining to 70 AD. The 2nd time, in the end of this age pertaining to the persecuting of His church. Which means God allows His church to be persecuted, but at a certain point, enough is enough, now it's time to repay that persecution, thus the day of the Lord. IMO, the day of the Lord does not and cannot fit during Matthew 24:15-21, it fits during the 6th seal, meaning verse 29 in Matthew 24, meaning verses 12-17 in Revelation 6, which then eventually involves the 7th trumpet in Revelation 11, and the last 7 vials of wrath in Revelation 16.

what does the first question the disciples ask refer to? Obviously the destruction of the temple as stated in vs 1-2. So where is the line drawn in Matthew 24:4-35? Where do you “divorce” when will these things take place (destruction of temple) with the end of the age?


FOTG claims that preterism divorces the persecution of the saints in Matthew 24:9-10 from the great tribulation in Matthew 24:15-21. But then confusingly also claims that preterism conflates Matthew 24:9-10 with the great tribulation in Matthew 24:15-21. So his argument is all over the place.


Matthew 24:1-4 1Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple.2But he answered them, “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down. “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”


Now about your discussion on “wrath”:
Luke calls the destruction of Jerusalem the WRATH of God and says of vengeance to FULFILL ALL THAT IS WRITTEN. Additionally, Revelation makes no mention of the wrath occurring post the great tribulation, so I’m not following you there. The 6th seal fits perfectly into Matthew 24:15 and onward while the other seals fit perfectly with the events that occur leading up the great tribulation: Matthew 24:4-14: persecution, false prophets, famines, death, war, pestilence. It’s almost as if revelation 6 is John’s OD in symbolic form.

 

[claninja]

Thus the persecution/tribulation of the disciples of Jesus mentioned in Matthew 24:9 & 21 and Luke 21:11-18 = the wrath of God coming upon Jerusalem in 70 A.D, according to your dichotomy.

Ok so then you believe the persecution of the saints in luke21:12-19 refers to the wrath of god in luke 21:20-24?

 

[claninja]

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.

Lol ok I’m confused now. Do i DIVORCE the persecution of the saints in Matthew 24:9-10 from Matthew 24:21-15 or CONFLATE the persecution of the saints in Matthew 24:9-10 with Matthew 24:15-21?

 

[claninja]

@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.

This question is confusing and doesn’t make sense. I don’t divorce Luke’s persecution from Luke’s mention of the persecution?

Anyways….as stated for the umpteenth time:

I believe the persecution of the disciples in luke 21:13-19 is one of the events leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in luke 21:20-24.

Likewise, because I believe Matthew is a parallel account of Luke, I believe the persecution of the disciples in Matthew 24:9-10 is one of the events leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in Matthew 24:15-21

 

[claninja]

I agree, except that

1. I'm not sure about whether the 1st bowl of wrath only begins to be poured out after the resurrection, for a number of reasons that are not pertinent to this thread, so I'll leave that for another discussion some time.You could be right, though, I'm just saying I'm not sure for a number of reasons.
2. Matthew 24:9 is preceded by birth pains involving ethnos (nation) rising up against ethnos (nation), and kingdom against kingdom, famines, earthquakes and pestilences. Mentioned in all three synoptic gospels. Luke speaks about signs in the heavens right from the start. Matthew says that at the time of (the end) (Greek tote, translated as "Then"), the disciples of Jesus will be delivered up to tribulation (thlipsis) and killed, and that the disciples will be hated of all nations for Jesus' name's sake, and at this time (tote, translated as "then") many will be offended, and will betray one another.

We don't know how much betraying of one another (if any) on the part of the disciples of Jesus was taking place during the days of the destruction of Jerusalem's temple, and this time followed on the heals of Nero's persecution of the Christians, but Matthew 24:15 links the AoD standing in the holy place to the same time of the tribulation of the saints by using the word oun (therefore) ... and the temple was destroyed soon after the death of Nero.

Indeed, the whole passage from verse 9 onward is linked to verses 29-31 by Matthew's use of the Greek words which translate (correctly) into English as “then”, “and”, “but”, “therefore”, “for”, and “immediately after”.

But to me it's also like Matthew 10:16-42. Those instructions in Matthew 10:16-42 were given to the twelve when they were sent out to the lost sheep of the house of Israel only, but obviously would apply equally to their later missionary journeys when they took the gospel first to the Jews, then to the Gentiles - to all nations. They apply to all missionaries since then. So when the disciples of Jesus were suffering great tribulation under the hand of Nero, they would have been looking to the gospels and to the Olivet Discourse, as well as to Paul's letters to the Thessalonians for answers - and they would have believed they were living in the last days before the return of Christ. The book of Revelation had not yet been written, since there is no evidence John had already been banished to Patmos by 70 A.D, but only later.

So in that sense I agree with you - Jesus gives instructions and warnings about things that are coming to all generations - and His messages to the seven churches fall into this category also.

But the holy place in 70 A.D was the body of Christ (Post #2 in this thread). Personally I find it shocking that anyone could regard the mention of the holy place in Matthew 24:15 as a reference to the building in Jerusalem where animals were still be sacrificed as sin offerings to God, ignoring also the fact that the word therefore and the grammar of the passage links it to the tribulation of the disciples mentioned in verse 9, and the great tribulation mentioned in verses 21 and 29. And also because great tribulation in the New Testament is not referring to the wrath of God (Post #1 in this thread).

But we are on the same page with regard to your above post and what you say about the Revelaton.

I don’t really understand Why the phrase “when therefore” means Matthew 24:9-10 should be conflated with Matthew 24:15-21.

doún (a conjunction) – therefore, now then, accordingly so. 3767 (oún) occurs 526 times in the NT and is typically translated "therefore" which means, "By extension, here's how the dots connect."

It seems that “therefore” should more likely be referring to “the end” in the preceding verse. “When therefore” seems to be connecting the dots with “the end”.

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

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

 

[claninja]

(STAFF EDITED)


Still not following you FOTG, your argument is all over the place and contradicting.

On one hand you claim preterism believes the persecution of the disciples in Matthew 24:9 refers to wrath of God, on another hand you claim preterism divorces the persecution of the saints in Matthew 24:9 from the great tribulation in Matthew 24:15-21. Which is FOTG?

I’ve already explained I believe Luke and matthews OD are parallel. Thus the great tribulation in Matthew 24:15-21 is paralleling Luke’s days of wrath in luke 21:20-24. So it was false and claiming to call me dumb for not answering that.

 

[claninja]

Ellicot on Matthew 24:15
that it is before the destruction of the Temple, and therefore cannot be the presence of the plundering troops, or of the eagles of the legions in it; (2) that the “abomination” stands in the “Holy Place,” and therefore it cannot be identified with the appearance of the Roman eagles in the lines of the besieging legions under Cestius, A.D. 68. The answer is probably to be found in the faction-fights, the murders and outrages, the profane consecration of usurping priests, which the Jewish historian describes so fully (Jos. Wars, iv. 6, §§ 6-8). The Zealots had got possession of the Temple at an early stage in the siege, and profaned it by these and other like outrages; they made the Holy Place (in the very words of the historian) “a garrison and stronghold” of their tyrannous and lawless rule;