Your attitude is unnecessary.
Sorry Brother,
Didn't mean to be sarcastic...
Was just on a lighter mood.
Your attitude is unnecessary.
It's really easy to place the Great Tribulation in the 1st century AD IF you don't let your particular blend of "theology" get in the way:
(Luke 21:20 KJV) And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
(Luke 21:21 KJV) Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains . . . .
The same events/timing in Matthew in regards to the GT:
(Mat 24:16 KJV) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
.
.
.
(Mat 24:21 KJV) For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
We know from history that when Jerusalem was surrounded by the Roman armies of the war of 66-70 AD the place was sacked and the temple destroyed - this was the time that the early followers of Christ were told to "Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains"
It's simple and does not need "theological" acrobatics to explain away why it did not happen back in the 1st century AD.
And your point is...?
Mine is simply this: any discussion of the "great tribulation" is incomplete if it overlooks the belief held by some that the events of AD 66 - 70 were those about which Jesus prophesied. Picking at the details takes away nothing from my point.
My point is, 70AD has nothing to do with great tribulation and discussions around great tribulation must exclude 70AD events.
Some new testament books were allegedly written well after 70AD and none ever references to the events in 70AD as fulfilment of that prophesy. So, NO
Sorry Brother,
Didn't mean to be sarcastic...
Was just on a lighter mood.
So, the relevant Scripture: Matthew 24:34 "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." There are other verses which imply a similar time frame.
Any discussion of the "great tribulation" that completely ignores the events of AD 64 - 70 AD in Israel is incomplete at best.
Simple, whether Rome rose against Israel or Israel against Rome, the end is not yet. But then again, end of what? what ended in 70AD? even the sacrifices did not end in 70AD.
Now no scripture is of any private interpretation. You know a matter has to be established in the mouth of two or three witnesses.
Could you please provide a seconding scripture to this. So we can know the actual context of this generation as used by the Lord?
After Jerusalem falls and is trodden underfoot by the Gentiles (Luke 21:24), there will then appear signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars, and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; along with the sea and waves roaring (Luke 21:25), causing men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking/realizing that things in the future only are going to get worse (Luke 21:26).
Did all these things happen following the 70 AD fall of Jerusalem?
Anyone who says these events did occur, can then read anything they want and make anything they want to fit into any scriptures.
Quite the opposite. PRETERISM IS PURE FANTASY.But, the Bible comes together and makes great sense when one adopts preterism...
Quite the opposite. PRETERISM IS PURE FANTASY.
I posted numerous scriptures that show the events in Mark 13, Luke 21, and Matthew 24 do not correlate with the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem; to which you reply with "Preterism is what makes the Bible come together".I heard an ex-Christian claim Revelation really is nonsense. To futurist Christians, the Bible's eschatology hopelessly esoteric (nonsense) to which they depend on [dishonest] men, like Jack Van Impe, to interpret for them. But, the Bible comes together and makes great sense when one adopts preterism (in the past, usually refereed to with terms like a amillennialism and post-millennialism). I have a very hard time believing there's any such thing as an honest and knowledgeable pastor who isn't a preterist. Many pastors avoid the subject, as to not be guilty of spreading nonsense or of offending those who believe non-preterist nonsense.
claiming that something is absolutely inescapable one way or another without any scriptural support does not make for a credible case.Insisting "this generation" doesn't mean the generation present in Jesus' time is pure fantasy.
I repeat, "I have a very hard time believing there's any such thing as an honest and knowledgeable pastor who isn't a preterist." Most non-preterists I talk to know very little about the Bible, and engage in rank nonsense to defend their eschatology - neither is a quality of someone qualified to be a pastor. Mostly, they chant that preterism is pure fantasy, heresy, or "not Bible".
I repeat, "It's absolutely inescapable that Jesus referred to the destruction of the temple that stood in his day, which undeniably happened in 70 AD, before Jesus', 'this', generation passed."
claiming that something is absolutely inescapable one way or another without any scriptural support does not make for a credible case.
when confronted with numerous scriptures clearly indicating a view other than your own is valid, it does not make sense to hold on to some old dogma that contradicts the overwhelming evidence on the matter.
Yes, the Lord was referring to the temple of His day along with other of the great buildings that were then standing in Jerusalem, of which He stated: there would come a day in which not one stone would stand on top of another.I said, "It's absolutely inescapable that Jesus referred to the destruction of the temple that stood in his day." If you disagree, it just means you've never read the Bible: Mark 13:1 And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!” 2 And Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”
I read the Bible, it all agrees with my view.