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

[Zao is life]

scripture is clear

Such statements never make your understanding of what scriptures teaches true. Your mind is clear on the things you mentioned because your mind is made up on it, but scripture certainly is not clear about ANYTHING that Preterists and Partial-Preterists believe regarding what periods of time are meant in the Olivet Discourse or in the book of Revelation.

Scripture is clear that not all of what Jesus spoke about in His Olivet Discourse, or that Paul spoke about in his letters to the Thessalonians, or that Jesus revealed in his Revelation to His churches given by an angel to John, has been fulfilled.

Scripture is clear that a great deal of the prophetic word will be fulfilled after the Antichrist (the common name for the 8th king of Revelation) has ascended from the bottomless pit.

See what I just did? I started by asserting that my understanding of the prophetic Word is scripture (which is what starting your assertions with the statement ""Scripture is clear .." always implies).

So it's a very annoying way to begin any sentence. I'd prefer it if you would bring forth your arguments without giving them an illigimate stamp of approval that God does not allow ANY OF US to give to our opinions based on our own understanding of scripture.

It's your own opinions based on your own understanding of what the prophetic Word is saying. But it's not necessarily (and very often is not) what scripture is saying. Often scripture is clear that what scripture is saying is the exact opposite of what you claim it says.

Please. Because I won't read any post any further if it makes a false claim like "scripture is clear" when it's only and merely the opinions of mortals based on the understanding of mortals. In my opinion only the pride of mortals can cause mortals to give their opinions based on their understanding of scripture the stamp of approval of "scripture is clear .." when discussing the prophetic Word. God does not give those statements the stamp of His approval.

 

[Zao is life]

Those elect were spread all over the empire, and Christ came to them at his promised 1st century return and brought them relief--He did this as well as bringing judgment upon apostate Israel.

Are you saying that Christ sent Nero to bring relief to the elect? What about following 70 A.D and the periods of persecution of the elect in-between 70 A.D and Constantine?

From the Letters to the Churches we see that each of those "First Century Churches" Christ was DIRECTLY ADDRESSING had unique, contemporary situations that John & Paul testified were to "soon" be directly addressed by Christ's coming to them:

No we do not see that. That's obviously what you see, but that's clearly not the only audience Paul was speaking to, as though the Thessalonians were the only churches that existed, or would ever exist. There is no truth in your statement. Not surprisingly, you offer no scriptural basis for your statements.

The same goes for what you have chosen not to see in the Revelation, and I think Jesus knew that mortals would misinterpret a lot of what He revealed to His churches. Which is why long before He gave John the Revelation, He inspired His apostles to warn all future generations of His elect:

2 Peter 3
3 First, knowing this, that there will come in the last days scoffers walking according to their own lusts
4 and saying, Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.

2 Timothy 4
3 For the time will be when they will not endure sound doctrine, but they will heap up teachers to themselves according to their own lusts, tickling the ear.
4 And they will turn away their ears from the truth and will be turned to myths.
5 But you watch in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fully carry out your ministry."

Quite obviously, the myths would be of their own making, and wrapped up in doctrine and theology, and in eschatological models based on false doctrines.

There is a lot that Jesus inspired His apostles and John to write, so that all the elect of all generations could be aware, and could watch - but to seek to rob these important messages from all the elect except the first-century churches who first received the apostle's teaching and letters, is grievous, and a grievous harm inflicted upon the churches of Christ IMO - especially those who will see the fulfillment of the prophecies mentioned by Paul and by Jesus in His Revelation about the apostasy, and the appearance of the man of sin, the return of Christ, and the resurrection of the dead.

The resurrection of all the saints who have ever fallen asleep in Christ has not yet occurred.

Scripture teaches very clearly that the resurrection will occur when Christ returns - it was said over and over.

The man of sin has not yet been revealed. But I'm not too sure today that I can safely assume that the apostasy has nor yet occurred (2 Thessalonians 2:4). Because among a list of false doctrines, the church of today is full of myth-teaching wrapped up in this:

2 Timothy 2
16 But shun profane, vain babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness.
17 And their word will eat like a gangrene; among whom are Hymeneus and Philetus,
18 who have erred concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past, and who overthrow the faith of some.

2 Peter 3
3 First, knowing this, that there will come in the last days scoffers walking according to their own lusts
4 and saying, Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.

2 Timothy 3
1 Know this also, that in the last days grievous times will be on us.

 

[claninja]

You conveniently left out all the verses following verse 10. Matthew 24:9-31. The whole passage from verse 9 onward is joined together by the words "and, therefore, but, for, because .."

Preterists don’t believe the great tribulation starting with vs 15 is the same as the persecution of the saints in 9-10, so your argument is still a strawman.

IF preterists believed the the persecution of the saints in v 9-10 was the same event as the great tribulation starting in vs 15, then your argument would have some merit. BUT as preterists don’t, your argument is false.

The grammar shows that the tribulation being spoken of in verses 21-22 is the same tribulation of the elect (Matthew 24:22) that Jesus began speaking of in verse 9.

No, it doesn’t. If it did, there would be some serious scholarship and Greek experts that agree with you. But as it is, there doesn’t appear to be any serious scholarship NOR Greek experts that agree the grammar “shows” that the persecution of the disciples in vs 9-10 = the same event as the great tribulation starting in vs 15. Unless can you provide any Greek scholars or serious scholarship that would agree with you?

And because you have left the rest of the passage out, shows that you have everything after verse 10 completely conflated with Luke 21:23.

Wow, what an illogical conclusion.

 

[claninja]

Such statements never make your understanding of what scriptures teaches true. Your mind is clear on the things you mentioned because your mind is made up on it, but scripture certainly is not clear about ANYTHING that Preterists and Partial-Preterists believe regarding what periods of time are meant in the Olivet Discourse or in the book of Revelation.

Scripture is clear that not all of what Jesus spoke about in His Olivet Discourse, or that Paul spoke about in his letters to the Thessalonians, or that Jesus revealed in his Revelation to His churches given by an angel to John, has been fulfilled.

Scripture is clear that a great deal of the prophetic word will be fulfilled after the Antichrist (the common name for the 8th king of Revelation) has ascended from the bottomless pit.

See what I just did? I started by asserting that my understanding of the prophetic Word is scripture (which is what starting your assertions with the statement ""Scripture is clear .." always implies).

So it's a very annoying way to begin any sentence. I'd prefer it if you would bring forth your arguments without giving them an illigimate stamp of approval that God does not allow ANY OF US to give to our opinions based on our own understanding of scripture.

It's your own opinions based on your own understanding of what the prophetic Word is saying. But it's not necessarily (and very often is not) what scripture is saying. Often scripture is clear that what scripture is saying is the exact opposite of what you claim it says.

Please. Because I won't read any post any further if it makes a false claim like "scripture is clear" when it's only and merely the opinions of mortals based on the understanding of mortals. In my opinion only the pride of mortals can cause mortals to give their opinions based on their understanding of scripture the stamp of approval of "scripture is clear .." when discussing the prophetic Word. God does not give those statements the stamp of His approval.

“This generation will not pass away until all these things take place”…..seems pretty clear,

Did the disciples generation live through wars, famine, earthquakes, persecution, false prophets, lawlessness, the gospel going to the whole oikoumene, the coming of the son of man on the clouds, the coming of the kingdom with power, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, and the good and bad being gathered into the wedding hall? They sure did…. So that seems pretty clear.

but i understand the need for hyperfuturists to muddy the definitions and make confusing what is clear in order to foist personal futuristic interpretations.

 

[Zao is life]

“This generation will not pass away until all these things take place”…..seems pretty clear,

Did the disciples generation live through wars, famine, earthquakes, persecution, false prophets, lawlessness, the gospel going to the whole oikoumene, the coming of the son of man on the clouds, the coming of the kingdom with power, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, and the good and bad being gathered into the wedding hall? They sure did…. So that seems pretty clear.

but i understand the need for hyperfuturists to muddy the definitions and make confusing what is clear in order to foist personal futuristic interpretations.

I agree. It's 100% clear by the context that when speaking to the scribes and Pharisees in the temple about the coming destruction of city and sanctuary, "This generation shall not pass until all these things take place" is the generation being spoken about.

Likewise, it's 100% clear by the context that when speaking to his disciples on top of the Mount of Olives about the tribulation they would experience, and the great tribulation they would see, and His return in the midst of their (the disciples') great tribulation "this generation" is speaking about the generation of believers who who will see His return.

And it's pretty clear that no apostasy from the faith on the part of the saints, accompanied by lawlessness and the rise of Antichrist, and Christ's return, has ever taken place. The Christians who lived through Nero's persecution were martyred, they did not apostatize.

But I understand the need of hyper Preterists to muddy the definitions and context and ignore audience relevance and location of Jesus and make confusing what is clear in order to foist Preterist interpretations.

 

[Zao is life]

Preterists don’t believe the great tribulation starting with vs 15 is the same as the persecution of the saints in 9-10,

Well, that's your misinterpretation, not what the scripture says, because your misinterpretation is based on ignoring the plain and obvious grammar in the passage that's joined together with the words "and, but, therefore, for and because" - which are all 100% accurate translations from the Greek (and don't even need any Greek scholars to dissect the words) - and that misinterpretation of yours is the foundation for the rest of the theology you've built on top of it.

 

[DavidPT]

3.) the church in Philadelphia was to be kept from the hour of trial about to come upon the “whole world”. What event was the church of Philadelphia kept from?

In my view, this hasn't even been fulfilled yet, because if it has, and that it was fulfilled in the first century, what events could possibly explain it then?

Revelation 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.


Plus, we have to factor this in if we take verse 10 to be meaning something the Philadelphians fulfilled 2000 yeas ago. That would mean verse 9 would need to be understood like such.

Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet at the church in Philadelphia, and to know that I have loved thee, the church in Philadelphia.

What possibly explains this part if meaning 2000 years ago? I will make them to come and worship before thy feet.

A lot of interpreters ignore the part after this part---Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie--and only focus on that part and not the latter part as well. Clearly, Jesus is the speaker in that verse, and not only did He say the former in that verse, He also said the latter in that verse, and that the latter in that verse is pertaining to the former in that verse. IMO, Isaiah 60 for one, addresses some of this. And that the time frame Isaiah 60 appears to be involving can't be meaning 2000 years ago.

Isaiah 60:11 Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that men may bring unto thee the forces of the Gentiles, and that their kings may be brought.
12 For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.
13 The glory of Lebanon shall come unto thee, the fir tree, the pine tree, and the box together, to beautify the place of my sanctuary; and I will make the place of my feet glorious.
14 The sons also of them that afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee; and all they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet ; and they shall call thee, The city of the LORD, The Zion of the Holy One of Israel.

Assuming there is a connection here, Isaiah 60 is informing us that the 'thy' and the 'thee' recorded in Revelation 3:9 , this is not meaning anyone attending the church in Philadelphia 2000 years ago.

 

[DavidPT]

I agree. It's 100% clear by the context that when speaking to the scribes and Pharisees in the temple about the coming destruction of city and sanctuary, "This generation shall not pass until all these things take place" is clear by the context which generation is being spoken about.

Since Matthew 24:34 was brought up, this is one way I reason through the intended timing of that verse. I do it by considering verses 30-39, for example, then asking myself the following.

Verse 30, is it pertaining to events that were fulfilled in the first century? No.

Verse 31, is it pertaining to events that were fulfilled in the first century? No.


Verse 33, is it pertaining to events that were fulfilled in the first century? No.


Verses 35-39, are any of those verses pertaining to events that were fulfilled in the first century? No.

How then is it reasonable that verse 34 is pertaining to events in the first century when none of these others are? It isn't.

The way Preterists go about it in order to come across as being consistent, they apparently would answer yes to all of those other verses I brought up. At least they are being consistent in that case, I give them that. Except it is pointless if they are not even interpreting those other verses I brought up, correctly.

I, too am being consistent by interpreting verse 34 in light of what I conclude about those other verses I brought up. Anyone that might think those other verses I brought up, that they are not involving events that were fulfilled in the first century, but that verse 34 is, that interpreter is not being consistent. That interpreter is interpreting verse 34 out of context since that is not the context of those other verses I brought up. Therefore, that person couldn't possibly be interpreting verse 34 correctly. The persons that are interpreting verse 34 correctly are the ones interpreting those other verses I brought up, correctly. Then assigning verse 34 to the same time period those other verses are involving. But only if that person is interpreting those other verses correctly, where it is obvious to most of us that Preterists aren't interpreting those other verses correctly. What you then end up with is something that is debatable though it shouldn't be.

 

[DavidPT]

4.) Jesus charged apostate Israel with all the righteous blood shed and stated it would come upon their generation (luke 11 and Matthew 23). In the parable of the wicked tenants and wedding feast, following the destruction of apostate israel, the kingdom is given to the saints and the good and bad are gathered into the wedding hall. When we look at revelation, when Babylon, who is charged with all the righteous bloodshed, is judged, the wedding is ready and “blessed are those who are invited”. Would the 7 churches not being looking forward to this?

[/B]

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

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

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

Why is it when we get to almost the end of this book of Revelation once we get to chapter 18, would the focus still be on events involving the first century and what happened to unbelieving Jews leading up to 70 AD and 70 AD itself?

Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.


This is an interesting passage for a number of reasons. One reason being that the text indicates, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. Which then begs the question, for example, if one in the first century hears the words of the prophecy of this book, then adds to these things, and that one also does the same in the end of this age, say 2000 years later, how can God add unto both of them the plagues that are written in this book? The last 7 vials contain plagues, for instance. Should we take this to mean that the 7 vials are poured out in the first century then also poured out yet again in the end of this age, keeping in mind, this scenario that I raised, where one adds to these words in the first century, and someone adds to these words in the end of this age?

Revelation 15:8 And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God, and from his power; and no man was able to enter into the temple, till the seven plagues of the seven angels were fulfilled.


Clearly, it indicates the 7 vials are plagues since the 7 plagues of the 7 angels are meaning these vials recorded in Revelation 16.

 

[claninja]

I agree. It's 100% clear by the context that when speaking to the scribes and Pharisees in the temple about the coming destruction of city and sanctuary, "This generation shall not pass until all these things take place" is the generation being spoken about.

Likewise, it's 100% clear by the context that when speaking to his disciples on top of the temple amount about the tribulation they would experience, and the great tribulation they would see, and His return in the midst of their (the disciples') great tribulation "this generation" is speaking about the generation of believers who who will see His return.

Great, so then you agree all the 2nd personal “you” ‘s throughout the olivet discourse refer to the disciples standing right in front of Jesus then, correct? And are not 3rd personal “you” that refer to disciples in general?

And it's pretty clear that no apostasy from the faith on the part of the saints, accompanied by lawlessness and the rise of Antichrist, and Christ's return, has ever taken place. The Christians who lived through Nero's persecution were martyred, they did not apostatize.

On the contrary, we have John, who specifically stated antichrist had already come, many had left the church, and they knew it was the last hour.

 

[claninja]

Well, that's your misinterpretation, not what the scripture says, because your misinterpretation is based on ignoring the plain and obvious grammar in the passage that's joined together with the words "and, but, therefore, for and because" - which are all 100% accurate translations from the Greek (and don't even need any Greek scholars to dissect the words) - and that misinterpretation of yours is the foundation for the rest of the theology you've built on top of it.

Doesn’t matter if you believe preterists “misinterpret it”, your argument is still false and still and strawman. Preterism does not conflate the persecution of the saints with the days of wrath against Jerusalem. Your OP is built on a false premise.

And just as expected, you could produce no Greek experts nor scholarship that agrees that the “grammar shows” the persecution of the saints in Matthew 24:9-10 is the same event as the great tribulation starting in Matthew 24:15. I suspected your interpretation of the OD is a personal interpretation without any scholarly agreement, and my suspicions are being confirmed the more you deny providing any evidence.

 

[Zao is life]

Doesn’t matter if you believe preterists “misinterpret it”, your argument is still false and still and strawman. Preterism does not conflate the persecution of the saints with the days of wrath against Jerusalem. Your OP is built on a false premise.

And just as expected, you could produce no Greek experts nor scholarship that agrees that the “grammar shows” the persecution of the saints in Matthew 24:9-10 is the same event as the great tribulation starting in Matthew 24:15. I suspected your interpretation of the OD is a personal interpretation without any scholarly agreement, and my suspicions are being confirmed the more you deny providing any evidence.

No Greek scholarship is needed. The English words "and", "therefore", "but", "for", and "because" are 100% correct translations of the Greek. Strongs was a Greek scholar. He translates the original words for the reader in his Dictionary. Your argument in this regard is so weak it beggars belief. @claninja What you are asking is that I rewrite the text in the New Testament (the way you have done). But here's the text as handed down to us over thousands of years:

9 Then [tote: at the time of (the end)] they will deliver you up to be afflicted 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, 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.

Grammar is grammar, and the English words joining the passage together into one and the same subject are 100% correctly translated from the Greek, and your argument about the need for Greek scholarship to define the words that are already defined by Greek scholars is so weak as to beggar belief.

@claninja You have rewritten the passage in your mind to make it break up into a different topic after verse 10. No one can help you with plain, primary school grammar if you don't want to read it the way it says it.

 

[Zao is life]

Great, so then you agree all the 2nd personal “you” ‘s throughout the olivet discourse refer to the disciples standing right in front of Jesus then, correct? And are not 3rd personal “you” that refer to disciples in general?



On the contrary, we have John, who specifically stated antichrist had already come, many had left the church, and they knew it was the last hour.

I know and when the man of sin who came out of the midst of the lawlessness and apostasy was destroyed by the breath of Christ and the brightness of His coming, we all rose from the dead, according to your statement above.

 

[Zao is life]

Doesn’t matter if you believe preterists “misinterpret it”, your argument is still false and still and strawman. Preterism does not conflate the persecution of the saints with the days of wrath against Jerusalem. Your OP is built on a false premise.

And just as expected, you could produce no Greek experts nor scholarship that agrees that the “grammar shows” the persecution of the saints in Matthew 24:9-10 is the same event as the great tribulation starting in Matthew 24:15. I suspected your interpretation of the OD is a personal interpretation without any scholarly agreement, and my suspicions are being confirmed the more you deny providing any evidence.

A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.

Source: Straw man - Wikipedia

In other words, the person creating a straw man argument against the plain grammar of the passage is yourself. See post #32.

 

[parousia70]

parousia70: scripture is clear

Such statements never make your understanding of what scriptures teaches true.

Scripture teaches very clearly that…

Oh snap.

 

[Zao is life]

Scripture teaches very clearly that the resurrection will occur when Christ returns - it was said over and over.

Oh snap.

I'm glad you noticed it, because I was hoping you would.

All right, here it is:

Paul links the resurrection of the dead in Christ to the return of Christ in 1 Corinthians 15:20-23 and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; and explains how the dead will be raised in 1 Corinthians 15:35-57; and explains what the resurrection of the dead is, in 1 Corinthians 15:4-8 & 1 Corinthians 15:12-26.

In Romans 8:23-25 Paul tells us that we do not yet see the resurrection of the dead, but we wait for it with patience, groaning within ourselves, awaiting adoption, the redemption of our body;

and in 2 Timothy 2:16-18 Paul speaks about two men teaching the false doctrine that the resurrection is passed, overthrowing the faith of some;

and Peter tells us about scoffers in the last days denying that Christ will return in (2 Peter 3:3-4).

The bodily resurrection of the dead is so completely interwoven with the gospel of salvation that it's mentioned in all these verses:

Matthew 22:23, 28 & 30-31; Mark 12:18 & 23; Luke 2:34; Luke 14:14; Luke 20:27, 33, 35-36; John 5:29; John 11:24-25; Acts 1:22; Acts 2:31; Acts 4:2; Acts 4:33; Acts 17:18, 32; Acts 23:6, 8; Acts 24:15, 21; Acts 26:23; Romans 1:4; Romans 6:5; 1 Corinthians 15:12-13, 21, 42; Philippians 3:10; II Timothy 2:18; Hebrews 6:2; Hebrews 11:35; I Peter 1:3; I Peter 3:21; Revelation 20:5-6; Matthew 9:25; Matthew 10:8; Matthew 11:5; Matthew 14:2; Matthew 17:9; Matthew 16:21; Matthew 17:23; Matthew 20:19; Matthew 26:32; Matthew 27:52-53 & 63-64; Matthew 28:6-7; Mark 6:14 & 16; Mark 12:26; Mark 14:28; Mark 16:6 & 14; Luke 7:14; Luke 7:22; Luke 8:54; Luke 9:7 & 22; Luke 14:13-14; Luke 20:37; Luke 24:6; Luke 24:34; John 2:19-21; John 5:21; John 5:28-29; John 6:39, 40 & 44; John 11:23-35; John 12:1, 9 & 17; John 21:14; Acts 1:22; Acts 2:24, 31-32; Acts 3:15 & 26; Acts 4:1-2, 10 & 33; Acts 5:30; Acts 10:40; Acts 13:30 & 33-37; Acts 17:18 & 31-32; Acts 23:6-8; Acts 24:15 & 21; Acts 26:8; Romans 1:4; Romans 4:23-25; Romans 6:4-5; Romans 6:9; Romans 7:4; Romans 8:11; Romans 8:34; Romans 10:9; 1 Corinthians 6:14; 1 Corinthians 15:4, 12-23, 35-36, 42-45, 50-57; 2 Corinthians 1:9; 2 Corinthians 4:14; 2 Corinthians 5:15; Galatians 1:1; Ephesians 1:20; Ephesians 2:5-6; Ephesians 5:14; Philippians 3:10-11; Colossians 2:12-13; Colossians 3:1 (Compare with Romans 6:5); 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-16; 2 Timothy 2:8 & 18; Hebrews 6:1-2; Hebrews 11:35; 1 Peter 1:3-5; 1 Peter 1:21; 1 Peter 3:18 & 21; Revelation 20:5-6.

All this teaching of Jesus and of the apostles about the bodily resurrection of the dead makes it abundantly clear that the bodily resurrection of the dead is something that all generations of Christians would live in the hope of, as well as the fact that this bodily resurrection of all saints will occur at the time of the return of Christ.

Nowhere does Jesus or any apostle even imply that it would come at the same time as the destruction of the city and temple in the 1st century (just because the apostles were still expecting that destruction at the time they wrote their epistles); and in 1 Corinthians 15:51-57 Paul makes it abundantly clear that the resurrection of the dead is the final victory over death.

According to Preterism and Partial Preterism, the man of sin, whose appearance is accompanied by apostasy from faith in Christ and lawlessness among Christians, and who comes out from the midst of this apostasy and lawlessness, and who will be destroyed by the breath of Christ and the brightness of his coming, has already appeared, and the return of Christ has already come, and the bodily resurrection of the dead that is an integral part of the gospel that we live in hope of and is the final victory over death, has already occurred.

Preterists and Partial Preterists also have the tribulation of the saints mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 24:9-31 completely conflated with the wrath of God coming upon Jerusalem mentioned by Luke in Luke 21:23, even though they have to completely ignore the audience relevance, location, context, and grammar of Matthew 24:9-31 in order to do so:

"But woe to those who are with child, and to those suckling in those days! For there shall be great distress (ἀνάγκη anánkē) in the land and wrath (ὀργή orgḗ) upon this people." (Luke 21:23).

There is a huge difference between tribulation and wrath.

Jesus did not speak only about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple that day. While He was in the temple He told the scribes and Pharisees that their city and temple was going to be destroyed, after pronouncing woe upon them (Matthew 23:13-39).

Then He came out of the temple, and his disciples pointed out the magnificence of the temple buildings, whereupon he told them what he had just told the scribes and Pharisees in the temple.

Then He walked down the mountain, through the Kidron Valley, walked up the Mount of Olives and sat down at the top. When His disciples came to Him there asking Him when the destruction of the temple would come, and what the sign would be of His coming, He did not repeat what He had already said about the destruction of the temple - He began to tell them about the tribulation His disciples will experience at the time of the end, when the gospel has been preached in all the world as a witness to all nations.

When Jesus told the disciples about His return and the sign of his coming and of the end of the Age, the location was different, the audience was different, and the subject was different to the subject of the destruction of the city and temple and the woe to come upon the scribes and Pharisees. The chapter and verse divisions were only inserted into the text in 1227 A.D. It's 100% clear that Matthew 24:1-2 belongs with the previous chapter, because from the beginning of Jesus' answer to His disciples about the sign of His coming and of the end of the Age, 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 be afflicted 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, 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.

In Luke's gospel, whereas Luke uses the words distress and wrath to talk about the wrath of God coming upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem when it was surrounded by armies (Luke 21:23), the persecution and tribulation of the disciples of Jesus in the days leading up to the coming of the Son of man is being spoken about in Luke 21:12-19 & 27-28; Matthew 24:9-31, and Mark 13:9 & 11-13.

Only Preterists and Partial Preterists imagine that merely because the city and temple has been destroyed, those birth-pains, and that tribulation of the saints Jesus spoke about in Matthew 24:9-31 was "a 1st century thing", and that the return of Christ has come when the city and temple were destroyed (and, no doubt, the resurrection of all the saints that the New Testament speaks so much about).

It is a complete and utter false assumption. And that is the foundation of sand for the sand castle of Preterist and Partial Preterist eschatology that they have built on the sea's side of the high tide mark - the high tide being the great tribulation and the return of Christ - and besides this, it is grievous to the saints, and against Jesus and His apostles who warned over and over about the coming great tribulation before the return of Christ, urging all generations of Christians to watch and be ready.

Preterists and Partial Prerterists have the tribulation of the saints mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 24:9-31 completely conflated with the wrath of God that came upon Jerusalem when the city and temple were destroyed, mentioned by Luke in Luke 21:20-24 - and you keep proving it by continuing to argue that Matthew 24:11-31 is not speaking about the same subject as Matthew 24:9-10, but instead is speaking about the same events mentioned in Luke 21:20-24.

 

[claninja]

In my view, this hasn't even been fulfilled yet, because if it has, and that it was fulfilled in the first century, what events could possibly explain it then?

And this demonstrates why your original question to me of "what do the 7 churches have to with 70ad and the fate of unbelieving israelites?" is not an argument, because you don't even believe the events of revelation itself are related to the 7 churches of asia. So audience relevance is apparently irrelevant to your position. You asked me "what is the point of revelation if its about the fate of the unbelieving jews?". I would counter with what's the point of revelation if its purpose was to inform the 7 churches asia of what must quickly take place and that the time was at hand, if nothing in the book is relevant to them? Why would Christ tell the church in philadelphia that they would be kept from the hours of trial about to come up on the whole work, if it was irrelevant to them.

Your argument requires you to make many of the events of revelation irrelevant to the first century churches in asia, which in turns makes your original premise irrelevant.

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

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

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

I absolutely agree that revelation 18:24 should not be interpreted without any other passages (in a vacuum). Though most hyperfuturists try to do this by claiming babylon is the US or Russia or Islam or all false religion etc...etc....basically any other entity besides what other scriptures tell us (there are no other passages outside of revelation that charge any other entity with all the righteous blood shed besides apostate israel). The very definition of not interpreting revelation 18:24 in a vacuum would be to use the other scriptures that describe any other entity as being charge with all the righteous blood shed. And that would be found in luke 11 and matthew 23: apostate Israel. Unless any hyperfuturist can provide scripture, from the gospels, book of acts, or epistles that declare another entity besides apostate israel as charged with all the righteous blood shed?

Jesus wasn't talking past 70 ad in luke 11 and matthew 23 when he charged apostate israel with all the righteous blood shed, so why should I personally understand the symbolic vision of revelation 18:24 as more or beyond what Jesus already taught?

 

[claninja]

No Greek scholarship is needed. The English words "and", "therefore", "but", "for", and "because" are 100% correct translations of the Greek. Strongs was a Greek scholar. He translates the original words for the reader in his Dictionary. Your argument in this regard is so weak it beggars belief. @claninja What you are asking is that I rewrite the text in the New Testament (the way you have done). But here's the text as handed down to us over thousands of years:

9 Then [tote: at the time of (the end)] they will deliver you up to be afflicted 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, 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.

Grammar is grammar, and the English words joining the passage together into one and the same subject are 100% correctly translated from the Greek, and your argument about the need for Greek scholarship to define the words that are already defined by Greek scholars is so weak as to beggar belief.

@claninja You have rewritten the passage in your mind to make it break up into a different topic after verse 10. No one can help you with plain, primary school grammar if you don't want to read it the way it says it.

I know and when the man of sin who came out of the midst of the lawlessness and apostasy was destroyed by the breath of Christ and the brightness of His coming, we all rose from the dead, according to your statement above.

A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.

Source: Straw man - Wikipedia

In other words, the person creating a straw man argument against the plain grammar of the passage is yourself. See post #32.

"A straw man fallacy occurs when someone takes another person’s argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making." -https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/logical-fallacies/logical-fallacies-straw-man/

You've distorted what preterim believes in order to refute it. Preterism does not conflate the persecution of the saints (matthew 24:9-10) with the great tribulation (matthew 24:21) nor the days of wrath (luke 23:21), as you falsely claim in the OP. Your argument is a strawman.

Additionally, you continue avoid providing any serious scholarship or Greek expert opinion on the "grammar showing" that the persecution of the saints in matthew 24:9-10 is the same event as the great tribulation starting in vs 15. This is your own personal unique interpration, which requires a strawman argument to foist it up. Just and FYI, you seem to be ignoring the greek word for "when", found in matthew 24:15.

 

[claninja]

Oh snap.

Apparently it’s only clear when FOTG says it is.

 

[grafted branch]

This is an interesting passage for a number of reasons. One reason being that the text indicates, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. Which then begs the question, for example, if one in the first century hears the words of the prophecy of this book, then adds to these things, and that one also does the same in the end of this age, say 2000 years later, how can God add unto both of them the plagues that are written in this book? The last 7 vials contain plagues, for instance. Should we take this to mean that the 7 vials are poured out in the first century then also poured out yet again in the end of this age, keeping in mind, this scenario that I raised, where one adds to these words in the first century, and someone adds to these words in the end of this age?

You bring up an excellent point but it causes problems for almost everyone except preterist.

What if I changed Revelation to show there are eight seals, eight trumpets, and eight bowls? Would I then force God to administer these things in my lifetime?

What about if someone in the year 500AD added to the words of Revelation, the only way they could’ve had extra plagues added to them while they were alive would be if the plagues are meant in a spiritual way.

Or it could be that they are brought back to life as in Revelation 20:5 when the rest of the dead live after the 1,000 years but this would mean the plagues take place after the 1,000 years during Satans little season.

One other possibility is that John never meant for his words to have direct application to Gentiles. In Galatians 2:9 Paul was to go to the heathen and John to the circumcision. Unless you can show that John stopped going to the circumcision and started going to the Gentiles, that precedence still stood when Revelation was written.

Since preterist understand Revelation to be written prior to 70AD and meant for the circumcision and the plagues were to come upon the circumcision then Revelation 22:18 would make sense because it wasn’t meant for Gentiles.

What do you think? I have heard that some of the manuscripts have 616 instead of 666. This would mean someone has already both took away and added to the book. They took away 666 and added 616. Have the plagues already come up this person or will this person come back to life and experience the plagues in the future?