In your case, I think he is simply debunking your interpretation based on his interpretation of those verses.
That's what he thinks he's doing, but it's not reasonable to make the statement that I believe Jesus returns right after Matthew 24:15-21 is fulfilled when I have never said such a thing. If he wants to debate the meaning of that passage, that's fine, but it's not acceptable for him to misrepresent my view.
Your interpretation contradicts his interpretation of verses 15-30.
No kidding. But, I couldn't care less about that.
His interpretation of those verses doesn't have a gap of 2000 years between verse 15 and verse 30. Yours does.
Do you think I don't already know that? I know what he believes. That isn't the issue. The issue is him making false statements about what I believe. You complained about him doing that to you as well. But, I guess you think it's okay if he does that to me?
His interpretation does not have Christ returning 2000 years after verse 15 is fulfilled. His interpretation has Him returning after 42 months are fulfilled, where that 42 months begins with verse 15. According to his interpretation, the logic would be this per your interpretation, per his perspective. You have Christ returning in 70 AD not in the end of this age, since the correct length of time between verse 15 and verse 30 is not 2000 years it is 42 months. Granted, that is not your position, yet it is beside the point since his interpretation reveals the holes in your interpretation.
What holes? I interpret Matthew 24:15-31 just like you interpret Luke 21:20-27, so does that mean there are holes in your interpretation of Luke 21:20-27?
In your case the problem is not him, the problem is you since you are not being consistent here.
Yes, I am.
In your case the problem is not him, the problem is you since you are not being consistent here. You can't have verse 21 involving 70 AD then have verse 30 involving the 2nd coming in the end of this age when there is no 2000 year gap between those events. Verse 29 alone undeniably proves there is no 2000 year gap between the trib of those days, obviously meaning verse 21, and the coming meant in verse 30.
It undeniably proves nothing. Don't ever complain about me acting too confident and like I supposedly have all the answers again because that is hypocritical. You do that yourself. Why is it okay for you to see a 2000 year gap between the tribulation described in Luke 21:20-24a and Luke 20:27 but it's a problem if I see a 2000 year gap between Matthew 24:21 and Matthew 24:29? That makes no sense. And what about Matthew 24:23-26? That is something that occurs after Matthew 24:15-22 occurs. How can Jesus come immediately after Matthew 24:15-21 occurs when that would not allow Matthew 24:23-26 to occur? And, in my view, it wouldn't allow for the Jews being taken captive to all nations and the times of the Gentiles to occur, either.
IOW, in no universe is 2000 years immediately after anything.
Of course. But, no one is saying that.
The way you try and get around this, you invent another tribulation of days that follow the tribulation of days in verse 21 that the text knows nothing of.
What about spiritual tribulation involving persecution, mass apostasy, deception and increased wickedness? Does that not exist in your view? Is that not what Matthew 24:23-26 relates to? Matthew 24:15-22 is about God's wrath against unbelievers, not tribulation for believers. The tribulation that occurs before Christ's return relates to tribulation that believers go through.
The only tribulation mentioned prior to verse 29 is great tribulation, verse 21. Therefore, it stands to reason that the nearest antecedent for the tribulation of the days in verse 29 must be the tribulation of days involving verse 21.
That's like saying that the "great distress" mentioned in Luke 21:23 must be related to the "distress of nations" in Luke 21:25, but neither of us believe that. The times of the Gentiles begins or continues after the "great distress" mentioned in Luke 21:23 and many years later the "distress of nations" occurs. That's how I see the tribulation related to Matthew 24:21 compared to the tribulation related to Matthew 24:29 as well. One tribulation is God's physical wrath against the Jews in 70 AD and the other is global spiritual tribulation before Jesus returns.
At least Preterists are being consistent, even though they too are wrong.
There's nothing inconsistent in my view. Unlike you, I don't try to make Luke 21:20-24 into a completely different event than Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20 despite them being very obviously the same event, in my opinion.
I don't think you fully grasp the art of debunking something.
I am certain that you don't.
When someone attempts to debunk your view, you take it to mean they are misrepresenting your view when all they are basically doing is exposing the holes in your view.
So, can I say that's all he was doing when he misrepresented your view then? Was it wrong for you to complain about him misrepresenting your view since all he was doing was exposing holes in your view?
