Interesting preterist argument

[Davidpt]

John declared it was the last hour because many antichrists had gone out from the church - a mass falling away from the church (1 John 2:18-19).

Obviously, the last hour is not meaning a literal 60 minutes. I'm certain you obviously agree with that. Therefore, I'm not trying to insult your intelligence by telling you something you don't already obviously know. I said it in order to lead up to my points that follow. That it means the last hour involves an undisclosed amount of time. If the last hour can involve 10 years, for example, why can't it also involve 100 years, or 1000 years, or 2000 years?

What about the following passages where this 'last hour' is also found within the text?

Jude 1:18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.


Obviously, this last hour has to have a beginning. I don't have any issues with that beginning possibly meaning 2000 years ago. What's in question, when is the end of this last hour? Unless one argues something absurd, that this---who should walk after their own ungodly lusts--is not even applicable today, that it was only applicable 2000 years ago, that should tell any objective person, that even though this last hour may have initially began 2000 years ago, we are obviously still in this same last hour as we speak. And this for one proves it--mockers, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.


Jude 1:21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.


As if, one should only do that 2000 years ago and not today as well. This assuming this last hour began 2000 years ago. Verse 21 is what one should be doing all throughout this last hour. Verse 21 is not what one should only be doing in the first century. They should also be doing it in the 2nd century, the 3rd century, so on and so on, all the way up until this last hour has passed. And that verse 18 is not what one should be doing all throughout this last hour, except they do it, regardless.

Then there is this passage.

1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
6 Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations:
7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:


Should we remove this from the passage--- at the appearing of Jesus Christ---since that never occurred 2000 years ago, thus is still future as we speak? In verse 5 it talks about this last hour in question. In verse 7 it talks about the appearing of Jesus Christ. What is the connection? No connection at all?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Let me lay something out for you to consider, though I suspect your doctrinal bias may make it difficult to fully engage with what I’m trying to show here---

LOL!!! Says the most doctrinally biased person on the entire forum. <Yawn>

especially since you're not even a Preterist, yet agree with them that Matthew 24:21 is meaning 70 AD. My concern is with your interpretation of Matthew 24:21, which you suggest refers to 70 AD.

Yes, because it is clearly a parallel verse to Luke 21:20 which only someone with doctrinal bias can deny. And you agree that Luke 21:20 refers to 70 AD.

I would argue that this verse more properly applies to the final days of this age.

Yes, I'm well aware that you argue that because I actually remember things that you say to me.

You claim that Noah’s flood qualifies as “tribulation”, which then would mean, if true, that it surpasses in greatness the tribulation described in Matthew 24:21. If that's true, then by your logic, Jesus was apparently using hyperbole in Matthew 24---since, according to you, the flood was an even greater event of suffering.

I'm not using the argument that He was using hyperbole. The poster claninja made that argument and I argued against that. You misrepresent almost everything I believe. It's insane.

My argument, that I've told you many times, is that Jesus was saying it would be great tribulation unlike any other great tribulation that happened anywhere in the world and I do believe that what happened in 70 AD is unlike any other tribulation event that has ever happened anywhere in the world. Is there anything you don't understand about what I just said?

That would imply Jesus wasn’t being literal, which raises significant interpretive issues---assuming the flood truly counts as “tribulation.”

I never claimed that He wasn't being literal. Why do you just make up things in our head that I supposedly have said that I never actually said? I don't get it.

Let’s consider 2 Peter 3:5–6:

“For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.”

You interpret this as a parallel to verses 10–12 in the same chapter---but not by water this time around, but by literal fire. Fair enough. But here’s the inconsistency: you argue that the Day of the Lord (DOTL) happens after the tribulation, not during it---yet you still claim the flood, which you connect with the DOTL, is itself tribulation.

There are different kinds of tribulation. Do you understand that? I do not say that the DOTL happens after God's wrath. Do you understand what I'm telling you right now? Jesus comes after a time of spiritual tribulation involving increased persecution, deception, apostasy and wickedness according to passages like Matthew 24:9-13, Matthew 24:23-26 and 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12. That's tribulation that believers go through. Christ's wrath then comes against unbelievers on the day He returns and that is another type of tribulation. Do you understand what I'm telling you? Why do you act as if there is only one type of tribulation? There isn't. But, that is why you are so confused.

This is where your position begins to contradict itself.

Nope. This is where the position of your straw man contradicts itself, which means nothing to me.

If the DOTL follows tribulation and marks the return of Christ (which is a standard post-tribulation view), then how can the flood---which you compare to the DOTL---be tribulation, when the DOTL is not meaning tribulation?

The DOTL is also tribulation, but not the same type of tribulation that occurs just before that day comes. Is there some reason why you can't understand that there are different types of tribulation? Did you just ignore the verses I showed you that described God's wrath as tribulation?

By your own logic, it should come after tribulation, not represent it. Post-trib means just that: events happen after the tribulation, not during it.

In other words, if you believe the DOTL is post-tribulational (as I do), and you compare the DOTL to the flood, then logically the flood cannot be considered part of the tribulation either. That makes your assertion inconsistent.

You waste so much time making straw man arguments. Do you not think that fire coming down on the earth and destroying unbelievers qualifies as tribulation? Do you deny that God's wrath also can be considered tribulation?

I’m arguing that Noah’s flood does not qualify as tribulation for the very reason that the DOTL does not qualify as tribulation---it comes after it.

LOL. Let me put this as nicely as I can. That is stupid nonsense. God's wrath, which will occur on the DOTL most certainly qualifies as tribulation. But, it's a different type of tribulation than the tribulation that occurs before the day Jesus returns. Why can you not understand such a simple concept?

Meaning the DOTL comes after tribulation. Noahs flood did not follow anything. It certainly didn't follow after tribulation the way the DOTL follows after tribulation.

Define the tribulation that you believe occurs before the DOTL. In my view, there was tribulation before the flood in the sense of there being a lot of deception and increased wickedness before that which was the reason that God decided to destroy the world with a flood in the first place. And I'm sure Noah and his family had to endure tribulation before then in terms of people mocking them for building a giant boat in a place where there was no water.

The DOTL is the equivalent of Noah's flood.

Yes, it is, but do you really believe that? Both Jesus and Peter indicated that the scope of the destruction on the DOTL is equivalent to that of Noah's flood in terms of how the flood destroyed all unbelievers. Jesus said in relation to that "so shall also the coming of the Son of man be" (Matthew 24:39). He was saying that just as the flood destroyed all unbelievers, that is what will happen when He comes again as well.

And that the DOTL is not the equivalent of tribulation, it follows it. That’s why I say I hold to a true post-trib position. But can you really say the same, based on what you've been asserting?

Yes, I can. The DOTL follows tribulation in the sense of a time of increased persecution, deception, apostasy and wickedness, but tribulation in the form of God's wrath will occur on the DOTL as well.

Typically, only Preterists and Pretribbers insist that the DOTL is equivalent to the tribulation itself.

I don't insist that. Your straw man version of what you think I believe insists that, but I don't. I do not equate the DOTL with "the tribulation of those days", in other words. But, tribulation in the form of God's wrath occurs after that tribulation. This is a very simple thing to understand, yet I doubt that you will understand it.

Since neither of us holds those views, I find it odd that you're still treating Noah’s flood as if it were part of tribulation, especially when you’re also comparing it to the DOTL, which you acknowledge is after the tribulation.

You clearly do not read my posts carefully at all. I already talked about there being different types of tribulation and how God's wrath can also be considered to be tribulation. What do you not understand about that?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Correct it is a parable. The parable comes with no explanation as to the meaning of each component.

Some spiritual discernment is required to understand it, but I think you are quite lacking in spiritual discernment because of being duped by preterism.

That being said - the gathering of the good and bad into the wedding hall occurs POST the destruction of the city in the narrative. In what manner it is supposed to be interpreted - whether about the gentiles being gathered into the wedding hall or good and bad being gathered before the king - It reflects and mirrors Jesus statement in the OD that there would be a gathering POST destruction of Jerusalem before this generation passed away.

Be specific here. What is this gathering exactly that you think took place right after 70 AD? I don't even know what you are talking about, so please explain exactly how you understand the parable.

 

[claninja]

Obviously, the last hour is not meaning a literal 60 minutes. I'm certain you obviously agree with that

Correct, in the context of 1 john 2:18, it does not mean 60 literal minutes.

According to thayer’s lexicon, “hour” means the following in the context of 1 John 2:18:

• “the last hour i. e. the end of this age and very near the return of Christ from heaven (see ἔσχατος, 1, p. 253b), 1 John 2:18 “
• (https://biblehub.com/greek/5610.htm)

Additionally, the verb “it is” in 1 John 2:18 is present indicative active. In other words, John is stating that it is a fact that it is presently the last hour, ie, end of the age and very near to the return of Christ.

John could only know that for a fact, if he was living through the events of the Olivet discourse.

 

[claninja]

Some spiritual discernment is required to understand it, but I think you are quite lacking in spiritual discernment because of being duped by preterism.

if your hermeneutic is correct, you shouldn’t need ad hominems

Be specific here. What is this gathering exactly that you think took place right after 70 AD? I don't even know what you are talking about, so please explain exactly how you understand the parable.

I think it’s the gathering into the kingdom of God that took place within Jesus’ first century generation

 

[claninja]

My argument, that I've told you many times, is that Jesus was saying it would be great tribulation unlike any other great tribulation that happened anywhere in the world and I do believe that what happened in 70 AD is unlike any other tribulation event that has ever happened anywhere in the world. Is there anything you don't understand about what I just said?

The word “unlike” seems to be another part of where the confusion lies. Do you mean that the great tribulation is unlike other tribulations in category — like saying the earth is unlike the sun? Or do you mean it’s unlike in degree — like saying the heat of the sun is unlike the heat of a lamp?

That distinction matters. The former suggests a fundamentally different category of event, while the latter suggests a similar kind of event, but far more intense.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The word “unlike” seems to be another part of where the confusion lies. Do you mean that the great tribulation is unlike other tribulations in category — like saying the earth is unlike the sun? Or do you mean it’s unlike in degree — like saying the heat of the sun is unlike the heat of a lamp?

Neither. I'm comparing similar things that both involve tribulation, but the tribulation of Matthew 24:21 is unlike any other tribulation that has occurred anywhere in the world. This should not be so hard to understand.

That distinction matters. The former suggests a fundamentally different category of event,

I love how you try to make the rules all the time as if the options you present are the only possible options.

 

[claninja]

Neither. I'm comparing similar things that both involve tribulation, but the tribulation of Matthew 24:21 is unlike any other tribulation that has occurred anywhere in the world. This should not be so hard to understand.

“Unlike” any other tribulation in what way? Thats what I’m trying to ascertain.

I love how you try to make the rules all the time as if the options you present are the only possible options.

That wasn’t my intention. I only provided two examples so as to help get my point across. I didn’t mean there were only 2 options as to what you were trying to say.

 

[ewq1938]

I mean, I completely agree, history doesn’t record a literal, physical, visible, and bodily descension within Jesus’ generation

Because it didn't happen. Not even the bible itself does.

The second coming means all the saved dead resurrect and are immortal. There are no immortal, resurrected people so it is a fact the second coming did not happen.

 

[ewq1938]

James said the coming was near and the judge was at the door in James 5:8-9, alluding to Jesus’ statement that when you see all these things know (for a fact) that he is near, right at the door.

Already addressed this. Not even Jesus knew when, so James didn't either. Paul spoke like eh was going to be alive and be raptured. He wasn't. God doesn't give even a prophet all information about the future. Usually it's bits and pieces. It's very normal that people like James and Paul thought the second coming was near timewise. It wasn't.

So it’s not unreasonable for the apostles to declare - the coming is near (James 5:8-9), the coming is in a little while without delay (Hebrews 10:37), the end of all things is near (1 Peter 4:7), it is the last hour (1 John 2:18) - if they believed they were living through the events of the Olivet discourse.

They didn't live through those events though.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

“Unlike” any other tribulation in what way? Thats what I’m trying to ascertain.

In no other place in the world at any time has an army completely surrounded a city and completely destroyed it along with most of its people who were still in the city while taking the rest of its people in the city captive to all nations while radically affecting that people's religion by destroying its sacred temple buildings where they worshiped God and performed animal sacrifices and such. There is no other tribulation that has happened anywhere else in the world which was like what happened in Judea and Jerusalem in 70 AD in terms of the impact it had on the city, its people and its religion.

 

[Davidpt]

Noah's flood does not qualify as tribulation, so why are some still arguing it does?

Look what Jesus said in Matthew 24 in regards to the days of Noah leading up to the flood---For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage. Seriously, and I mean seriously, does that sound like that is describing a time of trouble?

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:


Obviously, at least to any truly objective person, the DOTL found in the verses below are the equivalent of Noah's flood. But that doesn't mean, that just because the water was literal, this means the fire is literal per the verses below. It is still the equivalent of Noah's flood either way the fact the world of the ungodly perished during Noah's flood and that the world of the ungodly that is now, will equally perish during the DOTL. Which could be a good argument against Premil, not for Premil. But that is for another debate None of that is relevant here.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 ¶Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?


What is relevant here, is this. It's simply a matter of, if the DOTL is the equivalent of Noah's flood, and surely it is, where does the DOTL fit in relation to great tribulation? Preterists and Pretribbers typically argue that the DOTL is the equivalent of great tribulation. Post tribbers, who might include both Premil and Amil, argue that the DOTL is not the equivalent of great tribulation, because how can it be if follows it instead? Keep that logic in mind, because now we need to use the exact same logic per the following.

In the exact same way that the DOTL can't be the equivalent of great tribulation if it follows it, how in the world could anyone that fully agrees with this logic turn right around and defy this logic per the following--that even though the DOTL is the equivalent of Noah's flood, Noah's flood is the equivalent of tribulation, but the DOTL is not the equivalent of tribulation? Even though these very same ones are already arguing that the DOTL is the equivalent of Noah's flood, but that the DOTL is not the equivalent of tribulation, but Noah's flood is the equivalent of tribulation. Can't find any holes in that logic, right? One can't have better sound logic than this, right? This is a perfect example of sound logic at it's finest, right? Obviously, I'm being sarcastic here.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Noah's flood does not qualify as tribulation, so why are some still arguing it does?

Are you being serious here? This is like denying that God's wrath can be called tribulation. But, it can. Why do you deny things that are clearly true?

The following verses clearly use the word tribulation to describe God's wrath.

Romans 2:9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

2 Thessalonians 1:6 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;

Revelation 2:22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.

I believe Matthew 24:21 is about God's wrath as well since the parallel verse of Luke 21:20 is clearly referring to God's wrath.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Noah's flood does not qualify as tribulation, so why are some still arguing it does?

Look what Jesus said in Matthew 24 in regards to the days of Noah leading up to the flood---For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage. Seriously, and I mean seriously, does that sound like that is describing a time of trouble?

You first said Noah's flood does not qualify as tribulation, but then you talked about the days leading up to the flood which is not the same thing as the flood itself. Who is saying that the days leading up to the flood when people are eating and drinking and getting married qualifies as tribulation? No one.

The flood itself qualifies as tribulation for unbelievers because it caused all of them to be killed.

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

Obviously, at least to any truly objective person, the DOTL found in the verses below are the equivalent of Noah's flood. But that doesn't mean, that just because the water was literal, this means the fire is literal per the verses below.

How can they be equivalent if the fire is not literal? That makes no sense. They cannot be equivalent unless the fire is literal. Did Peter give the impression that he was comparing a literal event to a spiritual event? Not at all. He strongly gives the impression that he was comparing one global, physical event to another.

It is still the equivalent of Noah's flood either way the fact the world of the ungodly perished during Noah's flood and that the world of the ungodly that is now, will equally perish during the DOTL. Which could be a good argument against Premil, not for Premil. But that is for another debate None of that is relevant here.

Wait a minute here. What do you mean that the world of the ungodly will equally perish during the DOTL if you are not taking it to be talking about literal fire? Can you tell me exactly how you interpret 2 Peter 3:10-13? Be as specific as possible. The passage is not long, so you should be able to do this.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 ¶Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

What is relevant here, is this. It's simply a matter of, if the DOTL is the equivalent of Noah's flood, and surely it is,

Again, how is it equivalent if the fire isn't literal fire?

where does the DOTL fit in relation to great tribulation?

The DOTL itself brings great tribulation in the form of God's wrath upon unbelievers. It describes God's wrath as occurring on the day that Jesus returns just like other passages do like Matthew 24:35-39, 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3, 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10 and Revelation 19:11-21.

Preterists and Pretribbers typically argue that the DOTL is the equivalent of great tribulation. Post tribbers, who might include both Premil and Amil, argue that the DOTL is not the equivalent of great tribulation, because how can it be if follows it instead?

Do you not understand that tribulation can describe things like persecution, but also God's wrath? The day of the Lord brings great tribulation upon unbelievers in the form of God's wrath after a time of great tribulation in relation to increased persecution, apostasy and wickedness that occurs just before Jesus returns to take vengeance and take out His wrath on His enemies.

Keep that logic in mind, because now we need to use the exact same logic per the following.

In the exact same way that the DOTL can't be the equivalent of great tribulation if it follows it,

Yes, it can. Why do you not understand that great tribulation is not just something that happens to believers but also can happen to unbelievers in the form of God's wrath?

how in the world could anyone that fully agrees with this logic turn right around and defy this logic per the following--that even though the DOTL is the equivalent of Noah's flood, Noah's flood is the equivalent of tribulation, but the DOTL is not the equivalent of tribulation? Even though these very same ones are already arguing that the DOTL is the equivalent of Noah's flood, but that the DOTL is not the equivalent of tribulation, but Noah's flood is the equivalent of tribulation. Can't find any holes in that logic, right? One can't have better sound logic than this, right? This is a perfect example of sound logic at it's finest, right? Obviously, I'm being sarcastic here.

Obviously, you are not making any sense here. You're just making yet another straw man argument as far as I can tell and it's all because of you somehow not being aware that there is more than one type of tribulation.

 

[claninja]

Because it didn't happen. Not even the bible itself does.

The second coming means all the saved dead resurrect and are immortal. There are no immortal, resurrected people so it is a fact the second coming did not happen.

As I’ve already stated, I absolutely agree the events didn’t unfold according to your framework.

Already addressed this. Not even Jesus knew when, so James didn't either. Paul spoke like eh was going to be alive and be raptured. He wasn't. God doesn't give even a prophet all information about the future. Usually it's bits and pieces. It's very normal that people like James and Paul thought the second coming was near timewise. It wasn't.

And I rebutted that - Not knowing the exact day nor hour is not the same as not knowing the general time frame.

Greek Grammar – A verb is set in the indicative mood in order to make a statement or assertion about facts, not hypotheticals, possibilities, or uncertainty. If I said in Greek, “the earth is (indicative) round”. This is an assertion that I believe to be true, and is also objectively true.

However,It’s important to note that this asserted fact is from the speaker’s perspective — not always objectively true or scientifically provable. For example, if I say in Greek, “The earth is (indicative) flat,” I am grammatically stating what I believe to be true, even if it is objectively false. The indicative mood is the mood of assertion, not of truth verification.

Additionally, lies and falsehoods can still be told using the indicative, because the grammar is about form (assertion) rather than truth value.

With all that in mind, when Jesus says, “When you see all these things, you know (οἴδατε – indicative) it is near, right at the door” (Matt 24:33), He is not expressing a possibility or conjecture. Grammatically, it is a statement of fact from his perspective — what the hearers are to understand as factual - is that they would know it was near when they saw the events of the Olivet discourse.

Likewise, when James writes, “The coming of the Lord has drawn near” (ἤγγικεν – perfect active indicative), he is making a grammatical assertion of fact, not a vague possibility. The perfect tense strengthens the force of this statement: he’s saying it has already drawn near, with ongoing relevance, as an assertion of fact.

From a grammatical standpoint, James personally believed and asserted that the coming of the Lord had drawn near as a present reality — not as a hope, possibility, or theoretical future event.

They didn't live through those events though.

History records and the NT (book of acts) affirms the apostles lived through wars, pestilence, famines, earthquakes, persecution.

Additionally,

• Paul affirms he lived through the gospel going to the whole oikoumene and to every creature under heaven ( Romans 1:8, Romans 10:18, Colossians 1:23)
• John affirms he lived through many false prophets going out into the world ( 1 John 4:1), and through a mass falling away which resulted in him knowing it was the last hour (1 John 2:18) - the word “hour” being defined in thayer’s lexicon as the end of the age, near to the coming of Christ in the context of 1 John 2:18.

To argue that the apostles did not live through the signs Jesus gave in Matthew 24 is demonstrably false — both biblically and historically.

Moreover, to deny that they lived through those events ONLY BECAUSE the gathering Son of Man did not visibly come on the clouds in the way your framework expects, is not sound exegesis — it is eisegesis.

 

[ewq1938]

History records and the NT (book of acts) affirms the apostles lived through wars, pestilence, famines, earthquakes, persecution.

But they did not live to see the trib, the mark, the image of the beast, the second coming or gathering of the saints which means they didn't see any of the OD events because all the events have to be seen to happen.

To argue that the apostles did not live through the signs Jesus gave in Matthew 24 is demonstrably false — both biblically and historically.

Actually, to argue that the apostles did live through ALL the signs Jesus gave in Matthew 24 is demonstrably false — both biblically and historically. They weren't gathered together by angels. They all died separately and at different times. Most were murdered, only John died of old age. None of them were gathered as described by Christ and none saw the second coming nor all the saved dead resurrect. You keep ignoring those facts.

 

[claninja]

In no other place in the world at any time has an army completely surrounded a city and completely destroyed it along with most of its people who were still in the city while taking the rest of its people in the city captive to all nations while radically affecting that people's religion by destroying its sacred temple buildings where they worshiped God and performed animal sacrifices and such. There is no other tribulation that has happened anywhere else in the world which was like what happened in Judea and Jerusalem in 70 AD in terms of the impact it had on the city, its people and its religion.

Thanks for clarifying. I completely agree with this. I think our approaches to getting there were just different (hyperbolic/idiomatic vs literal), and that’s where the confusion was.

 

[Scott Downey]

Noah's flood does not qualify as tribulation, so why are some still arguing it does?

Look what Jesus said in Matthew 24 in regards to the days of Noah leading up to the flood---For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage. Seriously, and I mean seriously, does that sound like that is describing a time of trouble?

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:


Obviously, at least to any truly objective person, the DOTL found in the verses below are the equivalent of Noah's flood. But that doesn't mean, that just because the water was literal, this means the fire is literal per the verses below. It is still the equivalent of Noah's flood either way the fact the world of the ungodly perished during Noah's flood and that the world of the ungodly that is now, will equally perish during the DOTL. Which could be a good argument against Premil, not for Premil. But that is for another debate None of that is relevant here.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 ¶Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?


What is relevant here, is this. It's simply a matter of, if the DOTL is the equivalent of Noah's flood, and surely it is, where does the DOTL fit in relation to great tribulation? Preterists and Pretribbers typically argue that the DOTL is the equivalent of great tribulation. Post tribbers, who might include both Premil and Amil, argue that the DOTL is not the equivalent of great tribulation, because how can it be if follows it instead? Keep that logic in mind, because now we need to use the exact same logic per the following.

In the exact same way that the DOTL can't be the equivalent of great tribulation if it follows it, how in the world could anyone that fully agrees with this logic turn right around and defy this logic per the following--that even though the DOTL is the equivalent of Noah's flood, Noah's flood is the equivalent of tribulation, but the DOTL is not the equivalent of tribulation? Even though these very same ones are already arguing that the DOTL is the equivalent of Noah's flood, but that the DOTL is not the equivalent of tribulation, but Noah's flood is the equivalent of tribulation. Can't find any holes in that logic, right? One can't have better sound logic than this, right? This is a perfect example of sound logic at it's finest, right? Obviously, I'm being sarcastic here.

It was a bad and tough and evil time to be alive on the earth back then.
Why did God bring the flood on the world of the ungodly?
Yes, evil people still planted, built and all the things to do with keeping alive.

Gen 6
Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.

3 And the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive[a] with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” 4 There were [b]giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

5 Then [c]the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent[d] of the thoughts of his heart was only evil [e]continually. 6 And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then there was the Nephilim, which we do not have today.
Maybe the order of events is the Nephilim arose then men turned towards great evil as the Nephilim further corrupted man.

God the Father wipes them out to start over because of His Son who was to be born as a man could not be Nephilim. Those people seem to be giants, look at Moses and Israel, how they fought with the Nephilim. So there is some kind of satanic thing occurring. And they came back.
God gave a prophecy that the seed of the woman would crush the serpent's head and enmity between the serpent's seed and Christ.

And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel.”

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Thanks for clarifying. I completely agree with this. I think our approaches to getting there were just different (hyperbolic/idiomatic vs literal), and that’s where the confusion was.

Okay. I was confused as to why you, a preterist, would be arguing with me about that verse since we both believe it relates to what happened in 70 AD.

 

[Davidpt]

It was a bad and tough and evil time to be alive on the earth back then.
Why did God bring the flood on the world of the ungodly?
Yes, evil people still planted, built and all the things to do with keeping alive.

Gen 6
Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.

3 And the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive[a] with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” 4 There were [b]giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

5 Then [c]the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent[d] of the thoughts of his heart was only evil [e]continually. 6 And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then there was the Nephilim, which we do not have today.
Maybe the order of events is the Nephilim arose then men turned towards great evil as the Nephilim further corrupted man.

God the Father wipes them out to start over because of His Son who was to be born as a man could not be Nephilim. Those people seem to be giants, look at Moses and Israel, how they fought with the Nephilim. So there is some kind of satanic thing occurring. And they came back.
God gave a prophecy that the seed of the woman would crush the serpent's head and enmity between the serpent's seed and Christ.

And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel.”

It's not entirely clear to me by what you submitted, that if you agree Noah's flood = tribulation, or that you disagree it does?

The way I tend to try and view a time of trouble is in this manner. It involves conflicts between nations, for one. For example, WW1, WW2. Those are examples of conflicts between nations. Before the flood did nations even exist at that time the way they did after the flood, and that they were having conflicts with each other all the time, prior to the flood?

Look what the parallel to Matthew 24:21 records, regardless that some deny it's a parallel.

Daniel 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time

Now compare with this.

Genesis 10:1 Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood.

Genesis 10:32 These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.

It clearly spells it out for us. Thus Noah's flood can't be compared to anything, especially tribulation, not to mention, tribulation involves a time of trouble and persecution. Genesis10 is talking about nations after the flood, not before the flood. And that Daniel 12:1 says---ever since there was a nation.


The most absurd thing I have noted anyone doing is having Matthew 24:21 involving a local event and then having Daniel 12:1 involving a global event that happens much later. When Jesus already plainly told us that nothing in the past nor in the future can equal nor surpass this great tribulation in severity--proved by what He said here---no, nor ever shall be. What part of---no, nor ever shall be---are some failing to comprehend?

This interpretation implies that a local event can surpass a global event in greatness, in severity. Any reasonable person knows that that logic is backwards. That would be like comparing a local flood to Noah's flood, a global flood, then insisting that the former surpasses the latter in greatness, in severity. keep in mind what I said here. I said this interpretation implies. I never one single time said that anyone is saying nor thinks that a local event can surpass a global event in greatness, in severity.

Which then proves my point, since no one would agree that it could, therefore, it is absurd to insist Matthew 24:21 is involving a local event, and Daniel 12:1 a global event, and that Jesus already told us in Matthew 24:21 it can't be equaled nor surpassed in severity. Thus this causes a major problem, the fact, per this interpretation, the one meant in Matthew 24 precedes the one meant in Daniel 12. Therefore, per this scenario, making the former greater in severity than the latter. Which adds up to, that a local event can surpass a global event in greatness, in severity.

BTW, my position on Matthew 24:21 has zero to do with Premil vs Amil. Even if I eventually changed my position to Amil, I'm never going to change my position in regards to Matthew 24:21 by agreeing that Preterists are interpreting that verse correctly. Unlike some others who take verse 21 to be involving a future tribulation, I do not agree with them that it is involving a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem where animal sacrificing resumes, though. That's not the only way to understand some of these things.

I choose to try and understand some of these things in light of 2 Thessalonians 2:4, for example, and what all that is involving. And that I do not take the temple meant in that verse, in the literal sense. As if it is involving a brick and mortar temple. Yeah, right. Where then is there even one single mention of Jerusalem anywhere in 2 Thessalonians 2 in order to support this literal temple interpretation pertaining to verse 4? Nowhere. There you go then, nothing before verse 4 nor after verse 4 supports that verse 4 involves a literal brick and mortar temple. Which then means the 2nd temple before it was destroyed is not meant. Nor is a rebuilt literal temple in the future meant. Yet, it is involving a 3rd temple, a spiritual temple though, not a literal temple.