the great Jewish "distress"

[Randy Kluth]

But it does. For one thing, you need to not make different wording to be equal. Then, or, at that time, is not the same as before these.

In quoting the various passages, as we already have, you drew no conclusions with respect to the question I raised. Where does it say specifically the "Abomination of Desolation" *precedes* the "birth pains?"

I already know that "then" is there, and that "before these" is there. As I said, something can precede something that it leads to and also accompany what it leads to. For example, a rain can lead to a flood, and can also accompany that flood.

Saying the "birth pains" precede the Fall of Jerusalem, and saying they lead to the Fall of Jerusalem in the same time frame of "this generation," is not saying anything appreciably different, other than to say it all takes place in a single generation.

"Then" indicates the general time frame Jesus is referring to, which is his own generation. That's when the "birth pains" take place. And they take place in order to forecast the fall of Jerusalem, the Roman "Abomination of Desolation" encircling Jerusalem and ultimately destroying the temple.

"Before these" is an indicator that the "birth pains" must precede the Fall of Jerusalem. But it is still "then," ie in the general time frame of "this generation."

 

[marks]

In quoting the various passages, as we already have, you drew no conclusions with respect to the question I raised. Where does it say specifically the "Abomination of Desolation" *precedes* the "birth pains?"

The AOD follows the birth pangs. Jerusalem surrounded by armies is before the birth pangs. There is a different narrative surrounding each of these.

Jerusalem surrounded by armies was prelude to Jerusalem's destruction, and the scattering of Israel. The AOD is prelude to Jerusalem's rescue, and the regathering of Israel.

What exactly is your question?

Much love!

 

[Truth7t7]

I continue to have a huge problem getting Christians to acknowledge the obvious, that in the Olivet Discourse Jesus focused not on the 2nd Coming as much as on the judgment to come against Israel in his own generation, and that Israel would go through a period of "great tribulation" from 70 AD, when the temple would be destroyed, to the end of the age. We call this the "Jewish Diaspora." Very few seem to be willing to acknowledge this, for the simple reason that modern prophetic circles do not favor that interpretation.

Just to answer your questions--not to settle the matters--I suggest my reasoning follows a general sense from Scriptures that we are not to prognosticate too much about the future, particularly when that may be obscuring what God is telling us to do now.

Deut 18. 10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead.

Acts 1. 7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority."

There is a tendency, sometimes, for people to want prophecy to be all about distant future events, so as to ignore what God is saying today.

Eze 12. 21 The word of the Lord came to me: 22 “Son of man, what is this proverb you have in the land of Israel: ‘The days go by and every vision comes to nothing’? 23 Say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am going to put an end to this proverb, and they will no longer quote it in Israel.’ Say to them, ‘The days are near when every vision will be fulfilled. 24 For there will be no more false visions or flattering divinations among the people of Israel. 25 But I the Lord will speak what I will, and it shall be fulfilled without delay. For in your days, you rebellious people, I will fulfill whatever I say, declares the Sovereign Lord .’ ”

And I think this fits well in the context of Jesus' Olivet Discourse in which some may have relegated his warning about the fall of Jerusalem to some distant, future generation, rather than something of immediate consequence, requiring immediate preparation. Jesus' Disciples were looking more to the Messianic coming at the end of the age than to the intervening judgment coming against Jerusalem and Jewish religion. They were looking for Israel's salvation even though Israel was presently ripe for judgment due to their hidden sin.

So I'm not surprised that when Jesus spoke of the fall of the temple that his Disciples immediately looked at a future outcome, as opposed to something more immediate that they had trouble grasping. Jesus clearly said all this would take place, ie the fall of the temple and its preliminary signs, in "this generation." Jesus did not ignore the question about his 2nd Coming, but he seemed to place it in the category of future expectation that provided a larger context, but not an explicit time frame.

Jesus seemed to focus the sense of his coming on a more imminent kind of divine coming in judgment in his own generation, destroying the temple, the city of Jerusalem, and producing an age-long period of judgment for the Jews until the time when Messiah would restore Israel. In the 3 synoptic Gospels, we see the same fall of the temple predicted in "this generation." And all 3 versions produce the exact same order of Jesus' address:

1) The temple will literally be destroyed.
2) Christians will be hated, Israel's religion will "grow cold," ignoring the Gospel testimony, and Jewish believers will have to endure for salvation.
3) The Jewish People will endure great tribulation, an age-long punishment.
4) The Abomination of Desolation, from Dan 9.26-27, or the desolation of the City and the Sanctuary.
5) The Jewish believers will flee to the mountains.
6) The temple will fall in "this generation."

Matt 24. 2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
...9 “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13 but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains...
21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again...
34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

Mark 13. 2 “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” ...
12 “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 13 Everyone will hate you because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.
14 “When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.
15 Let no one on the housetop go down or enter the house to take anything out....
18 Pray that this will not take place in winter, 19 because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again.
...30 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

Luke 21. 6 “As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.”
12 “But before all this, they will seize you and persecute you. They will hand you over to synagogues and put you in prison, and you will be brought before kings and governors, and all on account of my name. 13 And so you will bear testimony to me. 14 But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. 15 For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict. 16 You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers and sisters, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. 17 Everyone will hate you because of me. 18 But not a hair of your head will perish. 19 Stand firm, and you will win life.
20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near.
21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city.
22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers!
There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled...
32 “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."

I say all this to make the point that the "abomination of desolation" mentioned in Matt 24 and Mark 13 are sandwiched between #2 and #5, between the condition of Israel and of the Jewish Church and the need for believers to flee to the mountains. And in Luke 21 Luke uses a reference to Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, in place of the "abomination of desolation," again sandwiched between #2 and #5.

This for me positively identifies the AoD with the Roman encirclement of Jerusalem in 66-70 AD. It was after 66 AD that Jewish believers fled to Pella in the mountains. And it was directly before the Romans came to encircle Jerusalem that God found unbelieving Israel to be out of compliance with their covenant with God, their religion growing cold, and their turning to persecute believers in Jesus.

Therefore, this Address is all about a prophetic judgment Jesus was proclaiming against Israel in the same vein that the Prophets before him declared an imminent judgment upon Israel for their sins, when the Babylonians were about to destroy Jerusalem.

Daniel 9:24-27 represents a "Future" human man, that will cause "Abomination & Desolation" up to the very end "Consummation"

Merriam-Webster
Definition of consummation

1: the act of consummatingthe consummation of a contract by mutual signaturespecifically : the consummating of a marriage
2: the ultimate end : FINISH

Daniel 9:27KJV
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The AOD follows the birth pangs. Jerusalem surrounded by armies is before the birth pangs. There is a different narrative surrounding each of these.

Jerusalem surrounded by armies was prelude to Jerusalem's destruction, and the scattering of Israel. The AOD is prelude to Jerusalem's rescue, and the regathering of Israel.

What exactly is your question?

Much love!

You said:
"Both Matthew and Luke record the birth pangs. Matthew then goes on to detail things which are AFTER the birth pangs, Luke details things BEFORE the birth pangs."

Then you said:
"I see one account describing events that occur before, and the other events that occur after these birth pangs. So when the descriptions of what happens are different, this is because they are describing what are actually different events, separated in time."

Then you said:
"I'm saying both the destruction of Jerusalem, and the abomination of desolation were prophesied by Jesus, one to occur after, and one before the prophesied birth pangs. Two different events, two different times, all plainly stated."

So I asked:
"Where specifically is the *destruction of Jerusalem* preceding the "birth pangs?" It doesn't happen. The "birth pangs" precede the *destruction of Jerusalem.* " And that's because God's judgments upon sin take place initially as warnings, and then progress into full-scale judgment.

I don't differentiate between the "destruction of Jerusalem" and the "Abomination of Desolation." The AoD is the Roman Army that ultimately brings about the destruction of Jerusalem. Where is either the AoD or the destruction of Jerusalem *preceding* the "birth pangs?" They both *follow* the "birth pangs!"

1) You said Matthew details things *after* the "birth pangs." We know what those are: false Christs, wars, famines, and earthquakes. It is "then," or *at that time* that the following will happen: Christian persecution, religion waning in Israel, and a Christian testimony against sin in the whole world. "Then" refers to that generation to which Jesus was directing his remarks.

Luke said certain things would happen *before* wars, earthquakes, famines, and pestilences. Those things were the very things that Matthew said would happen "then," or *at that time,* or *in that generation.* They would be Christian persecution, a Christian testimony against sin in the world, and religion waning in Israel.

In other words, sin and Christian persecution in Israel would precede the judgments from God that follow. Matthew was not reversing the order, saying sin would follow the judgments--rather, he was just saying that at the same time the Disciples would see the judgments, they would see the sins that brought them on. "Then" means "at that time," and not necessarily *after that time.*

2) Then you said that you see some events occurring before, and other events occurring after. This is the problem, that Matthew and Luke were saying the *same things.* You are just reading into "then" something other than what Matthew meant. "Then" can mean *at that time,* and not necessarily, *after these things.*

3) Then you say that the destruction of Jerusalem followed the "birth pangs," and that the "abomination of desolation" occurred before the "birth pangs." But we never saw that anything, including the AoD, occurred before the "birth pangs."

The "birth pangs," on the contrary, preceded everything, except that they included other things that were contemporaneous with them--things that continued well past the "birth pangs." The Christian persecution, the waning of Jewish religion, and the preaching of the Gospel to all nations were contemporaneous with the "birth pangs," but extended well beyond them, and have continued throughout the age.

The "birth pangs" themselves only continued in Jesus' generation, and ended with the AoD, in which Jerusalem was destroyed. Earthquakes and famines continued, but not any longer as a warning sign of the coming desolation of Jerusalem.

4) So I asked, Where do you see the AoD preceding the "birth pangs?" The "birth pangs" actually precede the AoD, which is the destruction of Jerusalem. But you don't seem to understand the question:

Again, where do the Scriptures indicate the AoD precedes the "birth pangs?" You certainly don't see the destruction of Jerusalem preceding the "birth pangs," so you must've meant that the AoD precedes the "birth pangs?" Please explain!

This will be very convoluted to most because everything has been dismantled and put out of order. But I'm trying to put things back in order, just as God seems to have done for me. I'm not trying to be arrogant here--I'm submitting it for your consideration. Accept it if true. If not, forget it.

 

[amigo de christo]

I don't think knowing prophecy is the same as necromancy or reading tea leaves. Personally I find such knowledge meaningful to my life today.

Much love!

Blessed is He who speaks and those who hear the words of the PROPHECY of this book . That is what it even says in revelation .
Lambs embrace the things of the LORD . Now let the KING be praised .

 

[Randy Kluth]

I'm submitting this in a more comprehensible form, which is only possible when I'm not trying to unravel other views at the same time as stating my own views.

This is the order taking place in the Olivet Discourse:
1) The sins of Israel, leading to the 70 AD end of Jerusalem, and an age-long Jewish punishment--the Great Tribulation (not the reign of Antichrist, but rather, Israel's NT punishment).

2) The sins precede the judgments God brings against Israel, which are first warnings, and then full-scale judgment. First there are wars, earthquakes, famines, and pestilences as "early warning" signs of the impending destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.

And then there is the destruction of Jerusalem and an age-long Jewish diaspora. The exposure of Israel's sins, along with these "early warning" signs anticipate the full-fledged destruction of Israel's covenant with God and their age-long judgment. They won't be restored until the end of the age.

3) Matthew indicates that the "birth pains" will consist of these "early warning" judgments, accompanied by sins which will "then" or "at that time" be recognized as the precipitators of these warning judgments.

The sins of Israel continue well past the time of the "birth pangs," leading to Jerusalem's demise. But they initially appear contemporaneous with the "early warning" judgments to explain why Jerusalem is soon to be judged.

The "birth pains" themselves consist of things, like "wars," that continue well beyond the judgment of Jerusalem in 70 AD. But they specifically exist in Israel before 70 AD as a warning that the destruction of Jerusalem is soon to happen. And they explain why it will happen.

"Wars and rumors of wars" cease to be "early warning" signs, or "birth pangs," after they have led to the destruction of Jerusalem. But they continue on throughout history, for other reasons, validating Israel's continuing diaspora, or their punishment called, the "Great Tribulation."

 

[Truth7t7]

Jesus said both that the temple would fall in his own generation and that he would return after a long Jewish exile. In saying the temple would fall in his own generation he was *not* saying at the same time that he would return after a long Jewish exile. This is a refutation of "dualistic prophecy" in this particular application.

The Temple Destruction That Referenced In Matthew 24:1-2 Was "Symbolic" Of The Death, Burial, Resurrection That Destroyed The Temple

At the Lords "Death" the veil in the holy places was torn/rent, the temple was abolished/destroyed not one stone upon another (Gone) in the Spiritual

Matthew 24:1-2KJV
1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

John 2:19-22KJV
19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

Matthew 27:50-51KJV
50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

 

[Randy Kluth]

The Temple Destruction That Referenced In Matthew 24:1-2 Was "Symbolic" Of The Death, Burial, Resurrection That Destroyed The Temple

At the Lords "Death" the veil in the holy places was torn/rent, the temple was abolished/destroyed not one stone upon another (Gone) in the Spiritual

That's certainly one theory. I take the destruction of the temple literally. It was the terminal point of Jewish religion under the Law. It had been a conditional covenant, which when broken by one of the parties, ends up being a dead letter.

The Jews claim to continue on under the Law, but it is no longer recognized by God. The only covenant God recognizes today is an international covenant God has with all nations through faith in His Son, Jesus.

I do see and recognize your connection between the end of the temple and the death of Jesus. But Jesus rose, whereas the temple remains dead. And to have the temple of Law "dead," it had to literally be destroyed, and not just be a symbol. It was the literal end of Jewish religion under the Law.

 

[Truth7t7]

But Jesus rose, whereas the temple remains dead. And to have the temple of Law "dead," it had to literally be destroyed, and not just be a symbol. It was the literal end of Jewish religion under the Law.

I Disagree With Your Claim The Temple Had To Be Literally Destroyed. When The Veil Was Rent/Torn In The Holy Place The Temple Was Demolished/Gone

At the Lords "Death" the veil in the holy places was torn/rent, the temple was abolished/destroyed not one stone upon another (Gone) in the Spiritual

To maintain your Preterist teaching, the symbolic seen below must be removed, to maintain the Roman 66-70AD destruction of the temple as your focal point

Matthew 24:1-2KJV
1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

John 2:19-22KJV
19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

Matthew 27:50-51KJV
50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

 

[Truth7t7]

2) The sins precede the judgments God brings against Israel, which are first warnings, and then full-scale judgment. First there are wars, earthquakes, famines, and pestilences as "early warning" signs of the impending destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.

And then there is the destruction of Jerusalem and an age-long Jewish diaspora. The exposure of Israel's sins, along with these "early warning" signs anticipate the full-fledged destruction of Israel's covenant with God and their age-long judgment. They won't be restored until the end of the age.

3) Matthew indicates that the "birth pains" will consist of these "early warning" judgments, accompanied by sins which will "then" or "at that time" be recognized as the precipitators of these warning judgments.

The sins of Israel continue well past the time of the "birth pangs," leading to Jerusalem's demise. But they initially appear contemporaneous with the "early warning" judgments to explain why Jerusalem is soon to be judged.

The "birth pains" themselves consist of things, like "wars," that continue well beyond the judgment of Jerusalem in 70 AD. But they specifically exist in Israel before 70 AD as a warning that the destruction of Jerusalem is soon to happen. And they explain why it will happen.

"Wars and rumors of wars" cease to be "early warning" signs, or "birth pangs," after they have led to the destruction of Jerusalem. But they continue on throughout history, for other reasons, validating Israel's continuing diaspora, or their punishment called, the "Great Tribulation."

Where do you find great earthquakes, that were documented in 66-70AD Jerusalem?

 

[Truth7t7]

But they continue on throughout history, for other reasons, validating Israel's continuing diaspora, or their punishment called, the "Great Tribulation."

Gods word clearly describes the (Great Tribulation) singular, not a tribulation of Millennium's as you suggest

The Bible clearly shows that (The Beast) is given 42 months Revelation 13:1-5, do you believe this took place in 66-70AD?

Who was (The Beast) of Revelation 13:1-5 in 66-70AD?

 

[Oseas]

GOD said: ... mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people-Isaiah 56:v.7. But when GOD sent JESUS the Jews used the temple as business house, not for religious practice. The day JESUS went into the temple, He began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought, saying unto them, It is written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves.

The literal destruction of the temple was not "the terminal point of Jewish religion under the Law" at all, neither it was a break of any kind of covenant "by one of the parts" in that event.

What really broke the Covenant of Law was the establishment of the Covenant of Grace with the coming of JESUS. JESUS broke literally the Covenant of Law through the Grace, and even He Himself said: all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. Here was broken the covenant of the Law by the Word of JESUS, and the letter of the Law a dead letter.


The Jews use a Torah surreptitiously and intend to make valid their devilish religion before the nation of Israel, mainly the esoteric, and kabbalistic, and spiritist Judaism, in fact they are linked to the red Dragon through the 10 rebel tribes of Israel, symbolized by 10 horns,
from which will rise up the Man Beast like a lamb, a false lamb, a false messiah-John 5:v.43 and Revelation 13:v.11-18, and 2 Thes.2: v.11-12. By the way, that devilish Man was born decades ago and will manifest himself very soon as the messiah of the Jews, the clay, the dry land.


The temple and covil of thieves have nothing to do with the crucifixion and death of JESUS. The above theory has nothing to do with the Word of God, but mere speculations and opinions according human perspective, and not according God's perspective.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I Disagree With Your Claim The Temple Had To Be Literally Destroyed. When The Veil Was Rent/Torn In The Holy Place The Temple Was Demolished/Gone

At the Lords "Death" the veil in the holy places was torn/rent, the temple was abolished/destroyed not one stone upon another (Gone) in the Spiritual

To maintain your Preterist teaching, the symbolic seen below must be removed, to maintain the Roman 66-70AD destruction of the temple as your focal point

You wouldn't know "truth" if it looked you in the face. I'm *not* a Preterist!
And to claim the temple did not have to be literally destroyed flies in the face of the truth. Jesus himself said it had to be destroyed, stone by stone. You need a new name!

 

[Truth7t7]

I'm submitting this in a more comprehensible form, which is only possible when I'm not trying to unravel other views at the same time as stating my own views.

This is the order taking place in the Olivet Discourse:
1) The sins of Israel, leading to the 70 AD end of Jerusalem, and an age-long Jewish punishment--the Great Tribulation (not the reign of Antichrist, but rather, Israel's NT punishment).

2) The sins precede the judgments God brings against Israel, which are first warnings, and then full-scale judgment. First there are wars, earthquakes, famines, and pestilences as "early warning" signs of the impending destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.

And then there is the destruction of Jerusalem and an age-long Jewish diaspora. The exposure of Israel's sins, along with these "early warning" signs anticipate the full-fledged destruction of Israel's covenant with God and their age-long judgment. They won't be restored until the end of the age.

3) Matthew indicates that the "birth pains" will consist of these "early warning" judgments, accompanied by sins which will "then" or "at that time" be recognized as the precipitators of these warning judgments.

The sins of Israel continue well past the time of the "birth pangs," leading to Jerusalem's demise. But they initially appear contemporaneous with the "early warning" judgments to explain why Jerusalem is soon to be judged.

The "birth pains" themselves consist of things, like "wars," that continue well beyond the judgment of Jerusalem in 70 AD. But they specifically exist in Israel before 70 AD as a warning that the destruction of Jerusalem is soon to happen. And they explain why it will happen.

"Wars and rumors of wars" cease to be "early warning" signs, or "birth pangs," after they have led to the destruction of Jerusalem. But they continue on throughout history, for other reasons, validating Israel's continuing diaspora, or their punishment called, the "Great Tribulation."

You have 70AD plastered everywhere, and you claim your not Preterist in your eschatology, be honest with yourself

 

[Randy Kluth]

You have 70AD plastered everywhere, and you claim your not Preterist in your eschatology, be honest with yourself

Because of folks like you, who are not honest--does not deserve the name "Truth," I have to "plaster everywhere" what the difference is between Preterism and myself.

I've been painfully honest about my close association with Preterism in some respects, but you apparently see "70 AD" plastered everywhere, but not my explanations, which are also plastered everywhere?

Once again--just for you, this is the explanation in short. I can be much more detailed, if you like. I've been sharing this for years.

Preterism is a system of prophetic interpretation that prefers to see most prophecy fulfilled in the past. For example, Preterism sees much prophecy that others see as "future" already fulfilled in the ancient Roman Empire. They see the Olivet Discourse, the AoD, and sometimes even the coming of Christ as having been fulfilled in 70 AD. They also see most of the book of Revelation and the Antichrist fulfilled in the Roman Empire and in the Caesars.

Preterism began by a Catholic theologian Alcasar who wrote books in the early 17th century to persuade others that the Catholic Pope was not the Antichrist. The Early Church Fathers, like Alcasar, did not view Church leaders as the future Antichrist, but they did see him as emerging out of the old Roman Empire, as did the Reformers, who thought the RCC fit that definition. When the Roman Empire fell, Christians began to identify the Antichrist as antiChristian movements that took place after 476 AD, eg the Moslems, the Mongols, etc.

The view that the Olivet Discourse focused largely on Jesus' generation was held to by the Church Fathers, and was not "Preterism," although many Christians, who are futurists, tend to make this connection, as you do. But viewing the Abomination of Desolation as already fulfilled in the Roman desolation of Jerusalem in 70 AD is not strictly "Preterism." Rather, it is historical interpretation of biblical prophecy, which most all Christians engage in. Every time you read a Messianic prophecy that had already been fulfilled in Jesus, such as "he will be born in Bethlehem," you are engaging in "historical interpretation of biblical prophecy." It is *not* Preterism.

So you make a huge mistake, and use that to slander me as a Preterist, when I am not. Worse, you call me "dishonest" for speaking the truth on this. You really need to repent.

I believe that most of the book of Revelation is future, with a literal Antichrist who will consolidate 10 European countries under his rule. This is *not* Preterism. Simply seeing the AoD of Matt 24 as the Roman Army is *not* Preterism, and was held by the Church Fathers, who also were not Preterist.

I don't wish to be hostile about this. But you are calling me "dishonest," when that simply isn't true--never was.

 

[Truth7t7]

I believe that most of the book of Revelation is future, with a literal Antichrist who will consolidate 10 European countries under his rule. This is *not* Preterism. Simply seeing the AoD of Matt 24 as the Roman Army is *not* Preterism, and was held by the Church Fathers, who also were not Preterist.

Teaching that the AOD in Matthew 24:15 took place in the 66-70AD destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman Armies is Preterism, because the AOD is a "Future" event unfulfilled

Matthee 24:15KJV
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand

You state you believe "Most" of the book of Revelation is future, what parts have been fulfilled?

Daniel 9:24-27 represents a "Future" human man, that will cause "Abomination & Desolation" up to the very end "Consummation"

Merriam-Webster
Definition of consummation

1: the act of consummatingthe consummation of a contract by mutual signaturespecifically : the consummating of a marriage
2: the ultimate end : FINISH

Daniel 9:27KJV
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Teaching that the AOD in Matthew 24:15 took place in the 66-70AD destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman Armies is Preterism, because the AOD is a "Future" event unfulfilled

No, that isn't the definition of Preterism, as I told you. This is historical interpretation. Preterism takes historical interpretation to an extreme degree, and I don't.

The Church Fathers, as I understand them, believed that the AoD took place in the 66-70 AD destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman Armies, and were *not* Preterists! This is historical interpretation, and many non-Preterist Christian scholars have believed this. If you just want to call me a Preterist you won't get away with it with me.

 

[Truth7t7]

No, that isn't the definition of Preterism, as I told you. This is historical interpretation. Preterism takes historical interpretation to an extreme degree, and I don't.

The Church Fathers, as I understand them, believed that the AoD took place in the 66-70 AD destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman Armies, and were *not* Preterists! This is historical interpretation, and many non-Preterist Christian scholars have believed this. If you just want to call me a Preterist you won't get away with it with me.

Randy (Reformed Eschatology) in "Historicism" is in the (Partial Preterist) camp, that teaches parts of the Olivet Discourse took place in 66-70AD such as the AOD in Matthew 24:15, it believes in a future second coming, this is (Partial Preterism) Fact

Full Preterist, All Fulfilled Below

Partial Preterist, Some Fulfilled Below

Futurist, None Fulfilled Below

The Three Factors Seen In Matthew 24

1. ) Matthew 24:15 Abomination Of Desolation

2.) Matthew 24:21 The Great Tribulation

3.) Matthew 24:29-31 The Second Coming

 

[Randy Kluth]

Randy (Reformed Eschatology) in "Historicism" is in the (Partial Preterist) camp, that teaches parts of the Olivet Discourse took place in 66-70AD such as the AOD in Matthew 24:15, it believes in a future second coming, this is (Partial Preterism) Fact

I don't think you know what you're talking about. I was referring to Historical Interpretation, which recognizes prophecies that have already been fulfilled. This I'm distinguishing from "Historicism" as a system of interpretation, which can be confused with how some Christians in history have interpreted the Antichrist, for example, as the RCC.

I interpret the Abomination of Desolation as the Roman Army, which destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD. I don't know of any Christian scholars who would deny this, just as they would not deny that Jesus already came and fulfilled prophecy by dying on the cross.

However, I view myself as a Futurist, because I believe the book of Revelation largely refers to a future, as yet unknown Antichrist, who will preside over 10 nations which have emerged out of the former Roman Empire.

Full Preterist, All Fulfilled Below

Partial Preterist, Some Fulfilled Below

Futurist, None Fulfilled Below

The Three Factors Seen In Matthew 24

1. ) Matthew 24:15 Abomination Of Desolation

2.) Matthew 24:21 The Great Tribulation

3.) Matthew 24:29-31 The Second Coming

That may be true, but it fails to distinguish between Preterism, of any kind, and Historical Interpretations of Prophecy that are not Preterism of any kind. I already explained this to you. Preterists interpret most of Revelation as fulfilled in ancient Rome. Partial Preterists accept that a few things are still future, in particular Christ's 2nd Coming.

I do not interpret most of Revelation as fulfilled in ancient Rome. I interpret most of Revelation as fulfilled in a future Antichrist. I explained that to you. If you have trouble understanding that, then you don't really understand the peculiarities of these schools of interpretation.

Don't try to fit me into a particular school unless you know how they differ from one another. The respectful way is to learn first, and then proclaim something--not the reverse order.

 

[Truth7t7]

I interpret the Abomination of Desolation as the Roman Army, which destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD. I don't know of any Christian scholars who would deny this, just as they would not deny that Jesus already came and fulfilled prophecy by dying on the cross.

However, I view myself as a Futurist, because I believe the book of Revelation largely refers to a future, as yet unknown Antichrist, who will preside over 10 nations which have emerged out of the former Roman Empire.



That may be true, but it fails to distinguish between Preterism, of any kind, and Historical Interpretations of Prophecy that are not Preterism of any kind. I already explained this to you. Preterists interpret most of Revelation as fulfilled in ancient Rome. Partial Preterists accept that a few things are still future, in particular Christ's 2nd Coming.

I do not interpret most of Revelation as fulfilled in ancient Rome. I interpret most of Revelation as fulfilled in a future Antichrist. I explained that to you. If you have trouble understanding that, then you don't really understand the peculiarities of these schools of interpretation.

Don't try to fit me into a particular school unless you know how they differ from one another. The respectful way is to learn first, and then proclaim something--not the reverse order.

Your belief that the AOD took place in 66-70AD puts you in the (Partial Preterist Camp), Futurist believe and teach all events below are future, it's that simple

Perhaps you need to study (Partial Preterism) and its belief and teaching, your currently ignorant of its definition

In Love, Jesus Is The Lord

Full Preterist, All Fulfilled Below

Partial Preterist, Some Fulfilled Below

Futurist, None Fulfilled Below

The Three Factors Seen In Matthew 24

1. ) Matthew 24:15 Abomination Of Desolation

2.) Matthew 24:21 The Great Tribulation

3.) Matthew 24:29-31 The Second Coming