Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Before I reply to this, why did you just ignore the fact that I posted you saying something that you said you didn’t say?
Then why do you not allow for the possibility of "great tribulation" in Matthew 24:21 to be God's wrath? Especially when Luke 21:23 describes it as "great distress in the land and wrath upon this people"?
Look at what you're saying here. This comes across as if you are differentiating between the wrath of God and great tribulation, as if great tribulation cannot ever refer to the wrath of God. And you wonder why I say that you come across as if you are claiming that great tribulation can't ever refer to God's wrath?
You are probably the only person in the world who would not describe Jesus sending great tribulation upon unrepentant people, resulting in their deaths if they don't repent, as God's wrath. Just look up any commentaries you can find on Revelation 2:22-23 and see if you can find anyone at all who agrees with you that it's not referring to the wrath of God/Christ there.
He said that they would be killed if they did not repent. It doesn't tell us explicitly what ended up happening, but let's say they didn't repent and Christ killed them, as He said He would if they didn't repent. You would not consider that to be the wrath of God?
I can't even believe some of the things you say. You say things that literally no one else would say. It's mind boggling. You don't think that the flood in Noah's day, that resulted in the death of everyone in the world except for Noah and his family, was God's wrath?
Guessing? Are you even reading the text? It specifically refers to sexual immorality and eating food sacrificed to idols. We don't have to guess. Jesus specifically said that He would bring great tribulation to them resulting in their deaths if they didn't repent. How can that not be the wrath of God? No one in the world would agree with you on this.
He did warn them! He said He would bring great tribulation to them, resulting in their deaths IF they did not repent. How is that not warning of God's wrath?
No mention of the wrath of God? Jesus is God. He was talking about sending great tribulation on them Himself. His wrath is the wrath of God.
Are you trying to claim that God's wrath can never be called tribulation? I've already shown you otherwise with Revelation 2:22. And there are passages like these, also...
That is NOT what he believes and he has never stated anything close to that.
Nowhere did Marty say that what happened in 70 AD was "great tribulation Christ tells His disciples they must endure". He has always said that "70 AD is the wrath of God coming against an apostate nation". You are misrepresenting his view.
This reading does not indicate that the elect are the focus of this tribulation great but that the tribulation would be shortened for their sakes. If the great tribulation goes right up until the Lord’s return, as you argue, then why was it necessary to shorten its duration to facilitate the great incoming of the elect? In fact, the Lord declares, unless this judgment upon Jerusalem was shortened, limited and contained “there should no flesh be saved” (Matthew 24:22). In essence, what He was saying was, there would have been no possibility of a lost Gentile world receiving this great Gospel if God’s wrath would have had similarly spread to all nations. Verse 23 then significantly declares, “Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.” What the Lord was saying was that after the destruction of Jerusalem had been completed there would be a time (namely the intra-Advent period) in which many false prophets would arise and perform many “great signs and wonders,” this would continue to His one final future all-consummating coming when He would appear “as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west” (Matthew 24:2).
Your theological claims do not make sense if you place the GT at the end:
This is a great point. How can anyone be led away captive to all nations at the end of the great tribulation when he believes that Jesus returns at the end of the great tribulation He referenced in Matthew 24:21? No one will be led way captive anywhere once He returns. He needs to address this.
Same thing here. That cannot occur after Jesus returns, which is when he thinks the great tribulation of Matthew 24:21 ends.
Right. Luke 21:20-24 presents a major problem for his understanding of the parallel passage of Matthew 24:15-22 (Mark 13:14-20). This is why many who have a futurist only view of the Olivet Discourse try to claim that Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20 are not parallel passages to Luke 21:20-24 even though they clearly are. They do that because they recognize that their understanding of Matthew 24:15-22 (Mark 13:14-20) cannot be reconciled with what is written in Luke 21:20-24. But, I don't think he claims that those 3 are not all parallel passages. I think he acknowledges that they are parallel passages because I'm pretty sure he claims that the Olivet Discourse does not have anything to do with what happened in 70 AD at all.
I can't disagree. He refuses to acknowledge it even when you quote him and prove that he said something that he claims to not have said. And he blatantly misrepresents your view (as he has done with mine several times before) of Matthew 24:21. You have always said you see it as God's wrath against the apostate nation of Israel and not something that is directed towards the disciples. You believe that the disciples were directed to flee from it, not that it would be directed towards them. That's clearly what Jesus indicated.
Right. It's baffling. It's a level of stubbornness that I can't comprehend.
Agree.
No problem. He probably thinks this means I support your overall preterist view, but, of course, I don't. But, I agree with your interpretation of Matthew 24:21, so I will support that. And I will certainly support anyone whose view is being blatantly misrepresented whether I agree with it or not. Unfortunately, people's views are blatantly misrepresented on this forum frequently and it results in a lot of wasted time with strawman arguments.
Yes, I think the passage you referenced in that post can support what the Revelation 2:22-23 passage is saying, but I would say Revelation 2:22-23 clearly explains itself. It's very straightforward. It indicates that Jesus was going to send great tribulation that would kill Jezebel and those who committed spiritual adultery with her if they did not repent. So, that is clearly describing the punishment He would give them if they didn't repent and that is a description of God's wrath (Jesus is God, of course, so His wrath is God's wrath). It couldn't be more clear.
With all your pointless rhetoric aside, do you acknowledge that Luke 21:20-24 relates to what happened in 70 AD? If so, do you believe that passage is parallel to Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20? If not, why not? Keep in mind that I agree with you that Luke 21 does talk about the future return of Christ as well.
