The year 70 AD is found NOWHERE is Sacred Scripture!
It most certainly is. You should be celebrating the accuracy of the prophecies in Sacred Scripture which prophesied of what happened then, but instead you deny that scripture would prophesy of such a significant event that showed everyone what God will do even to the Jews if they rebel against Him.
Daniel 9:26 “And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And
the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it
shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined.
Luke 19:41 Now as He drew near,
He saw the city and wept over it, 42 saying, “If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. 43 For days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and close you in on every side, 44 and level you, and your children within you, to the ground; and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not know the time of your visitation.”
Mark 13:1 Then as He went out of the temple, one of His disciples said to Him, “
Teacher, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!” 2 And Jesus answered and said to him,
“Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”
It's known to us only through historical fulfillment.
Yes, and what happened in Jerusalem in 70 AD, as documented historically, fits what scripture prophesied perfectly. What Jesus said in Luke 19:41-44 is exactly what happened in 70 AD. Is that just a coincidence to you?
Preterits use the historical writings of Josephus who writes of that particular date. That is all well and good, and his writings go into great detail about all of the horrors for Israel that accompanied the Jewish nation then.
Sure. We all base our understanding of historical events at least partly on non-Christian sources. Nothing wrong with that. He had no reason to lie about what he witnessed.
His details of the siege against Jerusalem and the temple are so depictive and in-depth regarding the Jews suffering. So much so that Preterits pick up on the detail from Josephus of the sufferings and argue that Jesus meant this particular time in history (70 AD) is when Christ warned of the AOD would be, as well as saying "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be", also came in 70 AD.
For good reason. It's not just a coincidence that what happened thing fits what is described in scripture. But, the thing they (and you) are wrong about is thinking that Jesus could only have spoken of one event rather than two events in the Olivet Discourse. He spoke both about the local event in Judea and Jerusalem, but mostly spoke about things relating to the global event of His second coming at the end of the age since that is a more significant event. He was asked two questions about two different things. That may not be what the disciples were thinking at the time when they asked the questions, but His answers relate to two different events.
Those embracing 70 AD as though it is a date established by Sacred Scripture argue that the AOD standing in the holy place pertains to the Roman Army when they desecrated the Temple. And therefore "great tribulation" Christ warns His disciples of came instead upon the apostate nation of Israel and is known by the horrors of the siege.
Wouldn't you expect that He would want to warn believers about that coming event so that they would know when to flee and avoid it rather than staying there and being killed? I think that makes a lot of sense. And that's what many Christians did when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by armies before it was destroyed and made desolate.
The gospel of Luke compounds the error because he writes in more detail of what Preterits believe is the Roman Army coming to destroy Jerusalem in 70 AD.
You don't have to be a preterist to understand that. The mstake preterists make is that they think the Olivet Discourse is all about that and it mostly is not about that! It's a mistake to think that the entire Olivet Discourse is either all about the past in relation to events before and during the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD or is all about the future in relation to the future second coming of Christ. This forces someone like you to conclude that Jesus is not speaking literally in Matthew 24:15-22/Mark 13:14-20/Luke 21:20-24 even though He was. There is no spiritual or heavenly Judea referenced anywhere in scripture. He was talking about believers living in Judea needing to the flee to the literal mountains in order to avoid being killed by the literal physical tribulation that was coming upon the literal earthly Jerusalem.
When Christ speaks of those days of vengeance, He does NOT speak of the nation coming under "great tribulation"! Christ says "in those days...there shall be great distress...and WRATH upon THIS people." Not wrath upon you (disciples), but upon THIS people.
Of course! That is what I have said over and over again! Why do you not read what others say more carefully? Why would anyone try to say that it's talking about wrath upon the disciples, especially considering that it's talking about God's wrath in relation to "the days of vengeance"? Of course it's talking about wrath upon the unbelieving Jews, not believers like the disciples.
Of course, the argument now is why can I not understand how the siege came from the wrath of God, but it is also "great tribulation" for the suffering Jews. This is the problem with Preteritism.
No, it's a problem with you not understanding the tribulation simply refers to trouble. It can be trouble relating to God's wrath against unbelievers or relating to temptation or persecution that believers have to endure. It's silly to try to make it have to be one or the other. It depends on the context of any given verse or passage.
The Preterit must make the Bible be written according to their doctrine rather than accepting how Christ tells His disciples great tribulation shall be upon THEM, but the wrath of God shall be upon THIS APOSTATE JEWISH PEOPLE.
Luke 21:23 says "great distress in the land and wrath upon this people". So, it uses the phrase "great distress" in the same context as the wrath. Great distress and great tribulation are the same thing. I showed you Revelation 2:22 where it talks about Jesus threatening "great tribulation" resulting in death upon Jezebel and anyone who committed spiritual adultery with her and that He would be the one who would bring it upon them. How can that possibly not be a description of God's wrath in that particular situation? It clearly is. You are the only person in the entire world who would deny that. Show me anyone else besides yourself who interprets the verse the way you do. Anyone at all. I don't believe you can.
This is why I say if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck! When you embrace 70 AD as being when AOD and great tribulation comes upon the apostate nation, then you are embracing the doctrine of Preterits!
That's total nonsense. There is no requirement at all to conclude that the entirety of the Olivet Discourse is about 70 AD just because of seeing that one verse or passage as being related to 70 AD. That's just ridiculous.
