Interesting preterist argument

[ewq1938]

The authors of the epistles claimed it was near - James 5:8-9, 1 Peter 4:7, Hebrews 10:37, 1 John 2:18. Seems like that could be evidence their generation was the one seeing the events olivet discourse in light of the fig tree - “when you see all these things you WILL KNOW it is near, right at the door”.

None of the events have happened yet so no one has seen all of them.


Yet even Jesus did not know when it was so how could they? They all wrote as if it was possible in their lifetimes, which is a normal assumption but it wasn't, and did not happen. They all died, not one was changed and raptured/gathered together...no one saw the second coming despite how hopeful they were about it.

 

[ewq1938]

Wait, so just to clarify, because this statements a little confusing - You believe the olivet discourse does mention temple destruction, just not the same temple destruction as Matthew 24:2?

No. No temple destruction is mentioned in the OD because the OD events are events that happen prior to the one and only real second coming when the dead resurrect and rule with Christ etc. Obviously the dead are not here ruling with Jesus.

 

[ewq1938]

Good point - @ewq1938 , do you think Luke 21:20 is about the destruction of Jerusalem in 66-70ad or no?

No. Christ is speaking of an occupation of the city and a spiritual desolation rather than a literal desolation. Same thing is mentioned in Rev:

Rev 11:1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
Rev 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

Here the temple is not being literally destroyed, and the h9oly city is occupied but also not being destroyed. The beast rules from the city, not destroys it. In Rev 20 the city still exists.

 

[David in NJ]

This guy lays out a good argument for Jesus's return in 70 AD. I'm curious for your thoughts IF you watch the 25-minute video.

If i get time i will watch it but the Scriptures guarantee he is off base.

 

[claninja]

No, it is not. You apparently need to take grammar and linguistics lessons.


Yes, it is. He was saying that it would be unlike any other great tribulation without saying anything about the scope of it. He did not say it would be greater than any other great tribulation. Why are you trying to make a fool out of Jesus? Clearly, no tribulation could be greater than the flood, so why would He say there would be a greater tribulation than that?


No, but that isn't what the verse says, so it's a pointless question. There has never been any other time of tribulation anywhere like what happened in Judea and Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Per Thayer’s Lexicon, the adjective “great” is defined as indicating intensity or degree. In the context of Matthew 24:21. The phrase “has not been nor shall ever be” expresses a superlative idea, emphasizing that this tribulation’s intensity is unmatched in history or future.

So I’m not sure what you are talking about specifically. Can you point to a grammatical or linguistic argument for your position?

 

[claninja]

No, it is not.

It literally is:

7The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. 8Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. 9Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.’ 10And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good

 

[Davidpt]

You are misinterpreting the verse. Amazingly, you are doing the same thing that Davidpt does with that verse by thinking Jesus was saying it would be a time of great tribulation greater in scope than any other. Agreeing with him about that should be embarrassing for you since he interprets everything with doctrinal bias. Jesus did not say it would be a tribulation greater in scope than any other. He is saying that it would be unlike any other tribulation.

Since I noticed you mentioned me here, I already wrote up something to try and address your post with here. But before I submit that, I need to be reminded what EXACTLY is your definition of Noah's flood? Does it qualify as tribulation, for example, in the same manner Matthew 24:21 qualifies as tribulation?

IOW, no one would argue that Matthew 24:21 is not involving tribulation regardless what time period they are applying that to, right? Therefore, are you equally arguing that no one would argue that Noah's flood was not tribulation as well? Therefore, you yourself are arguing that Noah's flood was tribulation, and that it alone surpasses the tribulation in greatness, the one Jesus was meaning in Matthew 24:21? Especially when you are already convinced that verse is meaning 70 AD, which makes it a lesser tribulation than the tribulation involving Noah's flood per that scenario, assuming you indeed view that also as a tribulation. Depending on your answer here, I might not even need to post what I already typed up in response to this post. But I suspect I likely will, and if I end up doing so it will likely be crystal clear why I had to, to probably everyone but you.

For the record, I do not agree that Noah's flood qualifies as tribulation and I have already written up something why I conclude that and undeniably proves that unless one is a Pretribber or a Preterist. For the record, in regards to you though, do you agree or disagree that Noah's flood qualifies as tribulation?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Per Thayer’s Lexicon, the adjective “great” is defined as indicating intensity or degree.

Right. But, it gives no indication of the scope in terms of whether it's something local, regional or global.

In the context of Matthew 24:21. The phrase “has not been nor shall ever be” expresses a superlative idea, emphasizing that this tribulation’s intensity is unmatched in history or future.

It means it's unlike any tribulation that has ever occurred before anywhere which certainly describes what happened in Judea and Jerusalem in 70 AD.

So I’m not sure what you are talking about specifically.

What I'm saying is not hard to understand at all, so I'm not sure why you're not getting it.

Can you point to a grammatical or linguistic argument for your position?

I'm already doing that, but you're so blinded by your preterism that you seem incapable of even considering or understanding any other view.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It literally is:

7The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. 8Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. 9Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.’ 10And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good

It's a parable. Do you understand that? Why do you take it so literally? It's an invitation to a wedding which represent the gospel offer of salvation which is still going on today. How can you not see that? I don't even know what you think it means. What gathering took place in 70 AD?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Since I noticed you mentioned me here, I already wrote up something to try and address your post with here. But before I submit that, I need to be reminded what EXACTLY is your definition of Noah's flood? Does it qualify as tribulation, for example, in the same manner Matthew 24:21 qualifies as tribulation?

Yes, because both relate to God's wrath, which can be described as tribulation, as we can see in these passages:

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 2:20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. 21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. 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.

IOW, no one would argue that Matthew 24:21 is not involving tribulation regardless what time period they are applying that to, right?

I would hope not.

Therefore, are you equally arguing that no one would argue that Noah's flood was not tribulation as well?

No one should. Tribulation can refer to God's wrath, as I showed above, so it's completely reasonable to refer to Noah's flood as tribulation.

Therefore, you yourself are arguing that Noah's flood was tribulation, and that it alone surpasses the tribulation in greatness, the one Jesus was meaning in Matthew 24:21?

Yes. I have refuted your understanding of that verse many times by referencing Noah's flood and asking how any tribulation could possibly be greater than that. Do you somehow not remember all the times I've done that?

Especially when you are already convinced that verse is meaning 70 AD, which makes it a lesser tribulation than the tribulation involving Noah's flood per that scenario, assuming you indeed view that also as a tribulation. Depending on your answer here, I might not even need to post what I already typed up in response to this post. But I suspect I likely will, and if I end up doing so it will likely be crystal clear why I had to, to probably everyone but you.

LOL. Whatever.

For the record, I do not agree that Noah's flood qualifies as tribulation and I have already written up something why I conclude that and undeniably proves that unless one is a Pretribber or a Preterist.

LOL. Your understanding of the word "undeniably" is clearly flawed. But, anyway, go for it.

For the record, in regards to you though, do you agree or disagree that Noah's flood qualifies as tribulation?

As I already said, I agree that it qualifies as tribulation because scripture very clearly indicates that God's wrath can be described as tribulation. I look forward to seeing how you try and fail to get around that.

 

[Davidpt]

No one should. Tribulation can refer to God's wrath, as I showed above, so it's completely reasonable to refer to Noah's flood as tribulation.


Yes. I have refuted your understanding of that verse many times by referencing Noah's flood and asking how any tribulation could possibly be greater than that. Do you somehow not remember all the times I've done that?


LOL. Whatever.


LOL. Your understanding of the word "undeniably" is clearly flawed. But, anyway, go for it.


As I already said, I agree that it qualifies as tribulation because scripture very clearly indicates that God's wrath can be described as tribulation. I look forward to seeing how you try and fail to get around that.

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

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

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.

This is where your position begins to contradict itself.

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? 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.

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. 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. The DOTL is the equivalent of Noah's flood. 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?

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

 

[claninja]

None of the events have happened yet so no one has seen all of them.


Yet even Jesus did not know when it was so how could they? They all wrote as if it was possible in their lifetimes, which is a normal assumption but it wasn't, and did not happen. They all died, not one was changed and raptured/gathered together...no one saw the second coming despite how hopeful they were about it.

Well, Jesus did say that when they saw the events of the Olivet Discourse unfolding, they would know that it was near — right at the door.

The Greek verb translated “know” is 2nd person, present indicative active:

• 2nd person – “you”; Jesus is directly addressing His disciples.
• Present – the events of olivet discourse span time, not a one time event, so the act of “knowing” is ongoing, not a one-time realization.
• Indicative – statement of fact. He is declaring they will in fact know. This does not indicate an assumption.
• Active – the disciples themselves are performing the action of knowing he is near when they see the events of the Olivet discourse; they are not passive recipients.

It’s interesting that “knowing” is present indicative and “see” is the Aorist subjunctive. This seems to indicate that as the events of the Olivet discourse are unfolding the disciples would know for a fact it is near, right at the door. In other words the knowing starts when the events are folding, not necessarily only after the events have unfolded.

James, in his epistle, states the coming of the Lord has drawn near and the judge is at the door in vs 8-9, alluding to the very words of Jesus in Matthew 24:33. That would seem to indicate that James was a witness to at least some of the events of the Olivet discourse before he died.

Jesus not knowing the day nor hour is not the same as Jesus not knowing the general time frame, thats why he provides the fig leaf analogy.

 

[claninja]

No.

Thank you for clarifying.

No temple destruction is mentioned in the OD because the OD events are events that happen prior to the one and only real second coming when the dead resurrect and rule with Christ etc. Obviously the dead are not here ruling with Jesus.

IF no first century destruction of the temple is mentioned in the discourse simply BECAUSE you personally believe the entire discourse is about 2000 years removed future events, That’s a subjective interpretation based on framework - an exegetical fallacy.

 

[claninja]

No. Christ is speaking of an occupation of the city and a spiritual desolation rather than a literal desolation. Same thing is mentioned in Rev:

Rev 11:1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
Rev 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

Here the temple is not being literally destroyed, and the h9oly city is occupied but also not being destroyed. The beast rules from the city, not destroys it. In Rev 20 the city still exists.

Thank you for clarifying.

 

[ewq1938]

Well, Jesus did say that when they saw the events of the Olivet Discourse unfolding, they would know that it was near — right at the door.

Sure, when they (the saints alive at the time of the OD events) see those early events, they will know it is that timeframe.

The Greek verb translated “know” is 2nd person, present indicative active:

• 2nd person – “you”; Jesus is directly addressing His disciples.

Addressing a future generation of disciples actually.

• Present – the events of olivet discourse span time, not a one time event, so the act of “knowing” is ongoing, not a one-time realization.

Obviously the events were not present at the discourse. It was future even to them.

• Indicative – statement of fact. He is declaring they will in fact know. This does not indicate an assumption.
• Active – the disciples themselves are performing the action of knowing he is near when they see the events of the Olivet discourse; they are not passive recipients.

They didn't see any of the events though. It cannot validly be argued that the second coming already happened. Full Preterism cannot be taken seriously for so many reasons I won't spend the time explaining.

 

[ewq1938]

Thank you for clarifying.



IF no first century destruction of the temple is mentioned in the discourse simply BECAUSE you personally believe the entire discourse is about 2000 years removed future events,

No, it simply isn't mentioned. Go ahead and quote Christ saying the temple would be destroyed within the actual OD, not before the discourse or after it but the actual discourse language.

That’s a subjective interpretation based on framework - an exegetical fallacy.

No, it's based on what history could not record, the second coming never having happened. That means none of the OD events have happened because one group of people will see all the events.

Had the second coming happened, and the saved dead resurrecting, and the living survivors of the trib raptured and all of them made immortal, I would be agreeing with you but none of that happened so the prophecy is still to be fulfilled.