[re: My Post #1271 (#1262)]
TheDivineWatermark said:
I had meant to ask @Roughsoul1991 if he has a response to this
Post #1262... I know
Truth7t7 won't have one.
I agree. Really nothing to say other than it is clearly evident this took place in AD 70. The place was practically leveled and the piles of rubble are still there today as the city built over or around it.
Okay, very good.
The reason I asked you, was because in
T7t7's Post #1249 (which was a response to my original point in
Post #1243 [pg63]), where he had started out by saying
to me,
"Your "Preterist" claims are false"...
your "[emoji-]reaction" (whatever they are called) was the "Happy"-face one, as though perhaps you AGREED with his thought that I had been presenting the "Preterist" viewpoint (which I certainly was
NOT). Just wanted to be sure to clear that up.
Yes, the passages I presented clearly show that
certain aspects of the Olivet Discourse WERE INDEED referring to the events surrounding
70ad; whereas
the majority of it is "far-future" (in the future "Trib years" / 7 years).
I did not say the fall of the temple was the tribulation period. It was only within the series of events to come. We are on a timeline where parts have already occurred.
Pretty much, yes!
Huh? Agree. Those scriptures are prophecy of future events that did occur in A.D. 70 it is in other passages where we learn of a tribulation period that is still to come.
Correct!
You are confused. The ad 70 event was not the tribulation in scripture.
Right on!
My first sentence in my quote literally contradicts your statement. There are more prophecies than that related just to the tribulation period. For example, the Daniel 9 prophecy is the same way. It can have fulfilled areas but near the end we are still waiting on the last 7 or 7 year tribulation.
Yes, that's it!
____________
T7t7 is simply applying things
"willy-nilly," while giving little regard to what the text/texts is/are
actually conveying.
The passages I supplied (spelled out) in
Post #1262/1271 provide the info necessary to conclude that
those certain things indeed took place in the very "near future" (to them, i.e. 70ad); rather than "far-future" as the OTHER aspects will occur (<--esp how Lk21:
32 expresses, "
TILL ALL be fulfilled"
necessarily must INCLUDE the TWO
very lengthy items
that v.24a had already JUST spoken of)...
...and that is a matter of grasping the "chronology" and paying close attention to what the text is actually conveying.
Glad you also see it similarly to how I was showing in those Posts... I'm relieved your "Happy"-face reaction (on T7t7's Post #1249) was not a show of "agreement" with
T7t7 that you thought I was presenting "Preterist" views,
when I wasn't. Thanks for clarifying! = )