Why I believe the Great Tribulation started in 70 A.D.

I'm assuming you are trying to address this:

(Isa 66:8 Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.)

You need to relate the above to what is previously written to who was to be destroyed/slain:

(Isa 65:15 And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen: for the Lord GOD shall slay thee, and call his servants by another name)

The above describes the destruction of the apostate Jewish nation in the war of the Romans. The new nation was born at Pentecost, Peter describes this nation "born at once".

(1 Pet 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light).

The Church is the new nation born at once.

I was on periscope for a long time and got acquainted with many Jews in Israel. They are waiting for Messiah to come. And many calling for Him to come. Though they don’t realize they are calling for Yeshua, our Saviour.

And they won’t listen to hearing who they are calling for.

One of the pastors I sat under for years said that the church is like an interruption in time. The time of the gentiles to come into the kingdom. Now there’s being prophesied that there is coming a movement that I think is the harvest of the end, for it’s an evangelistic move of God similar to the ministry of Billy Graham.

Doesn’t the time of the catching up come after the harvest? Then it’s when the body of Christ is taken, that a false messiah appears and is accepted. The anti-christ.

So then great tribulation comes upon all those who will not take the mark of the beast. It seems to me that the beast would be complete loyalty to this antichrist and the mark would be to take on the character of the antichrist.

It’s a time then for those refusing to take the mark but has become loyal to God and His Christ. And great tribulation for them. This would be those in Israel, and any gentiles left who knew truth but never surrendered.


Though I may be wrong for I haven’t studied.

Then a war with Jesus then appearing.

A simple view obtained by things heard over the years,

But, I know most all prophetic words say He’s at the door now. Be ready.

I think you are wrong about the nation of Israel. Paul said they would be saved. They are beloved by God. The apple of His eye. A nation like no other. Everything is wrapped around the worship of God. They dance in the streets with joy forvreceiving back their land. So don’t count thenpm out. They were the only nation with the scriptures and the presence of God and they are peculiar people in comparison to all other nations.

Though at one time America had this place in time, is no more this way. We have fallen. I think we are at a place now of like treading water. Holding our place but now divided,

Perhaps ask someone to delete the thread a remake it with OP saying what you want to discuss?

Seems prone to confusion because at first I thought this was a preterist thread.

I know the GT may be considered to have actually started three years before 70 A.D. - I am merely using the 70 A.D. date as a mark in time representing the overall event as a whole. (Because, it is so well-known and referenced by the label '70AD'.) Please see post #12.

Are you suggesting that Matthew 24:29-31 was fulfilled in 70 A.D.?

The grammatical sense of Luke 21:22 is not saying that ALL prophecy will have been fulfilled by 70 A.D. (or some particular date or time or event)

And, it is not [directly] tied to the 70 weeks of Daniel - which ended in 34 A.D. (Jesus fulfilled all of the Daniel 9:24 prophecy in week 70) - except as an outworking of prophecy.

Joke? Threat? Both?

Perhaps 'historicist' might be a better word?

Yeah pass. As I stated this is not a new idea. No need to rerererereread this theory.

Interesting...
----
Several Protestant Reformers were known to hold 'historicist / historicism' view.

Do you recognize and understand that these verses are describing things happening during the GT? :

Matthew 24:23-26
Mark 13:21-23

In a manner of speaking, yes; but more particularly, to help the Jews make sense out of something they already understood very well being mentioned in such a way that would help them recognize instantly when it started to happen again.

It would be similar if someone today were to say:

"When you see airplanes headed for the twin towers..."

(i.e. - the Jews already understood quite well what you wrote in the quote above; only, God used it to make a warning and prepare a people for when it happened the second time.)

I do not group the verses above as you have because I see them as having a long time span that actually overlap the 'see-then-flee' verses you refer to - as well as having differences between the verses in each group also.

I believe we look at the "But before all these" statement a little differently. I do not see it as including ALL verses in the chapter before it.

Just a joke.

"Never trouble trouble till trouble troubles you
For if you trouble trouble
Trouble will trouble you
Far more than you can trouble trouble"

I think it was the traditional protestant view of escatology before the counter-reformation.

I see what you’re saying and I’m following along.

I'll have to look at what you are talking about here, because (at first glance, unless I'm mistaken on what you've meant here) I am not referring to "the chpt before it," but the verses just listed right before (vv.8-11, "the beginning of birth PANGS" [and its parallels, of course]).

Perhaps you meant something different?

If I stick to the above passages (with what relates to these), may I make comment on THIS subject?? (I will endeavor to stay within these parameters... but I warn you, lol, it DOES touch on things beyond the immediate texts, here )

My basic answer to the above-quoted question...

Matthew 24:23-26 and Mark 13:21-23 are indeed parallel (so, YES!), and speak of the same time-period, which is [and involves]...

"The GREAT tribulation":

--defined as, the same period of time mentioned in Revelation 7:9,14 involving the "a great multitude... of all the nations" (who are said to be "coming OUT OF" it); and set in contradistinction to "the 144,000 [comp.1:1 with 7:3]" also on the earth at the same general time-frame as this "a great multitude" are "coming OUT OF [the GREAT tribulation]" [...vv.14-17 being parallel to Isa49:10, an earthly MK passage (i.e. their destination location)]

--the [Matt/Mk/Olivet Discourse] use of "proleptic 'you'" (meaning basically, "all those in the future, of the same category"... and in this context, refers to those TO WHOM the promised and prophesied EARTHLY Millennial Kingdom, was promised)

--"abominationS [PLURAL]" is what Daniel 9 refers to, that would take place following the "[Messiah]... be CUT OFF and have nothing [or, but not for himself]"; that is, after He is "cut off" [meaning, these (plural) fall in the yrs subsequent to His death (i.e. the 70ad events)]... but "abominaTION [SINGULAR]" is that to which both Jesus in Matt24:15 [in relation to the v.21 "GREAT tribulation" which will thereafter unfold] AND Dan12:11 refer [with "wording-connection" to that of 2Th2:4], which is something distinct from the "plural" form expressed in the former

--related to the same SEQUENCE, being, that which FOLLOWS "the beginning of birth PANGS [PLURAL]," and which the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR]" (back at the FIRST one of those) is what "kicks off" the 7-yr period (aka the ARRIVAL of the DOTL time period [1Th5:2-3 - "birth PANG [SINGULAR]"] with its "man of sin" ARRIVING at that same point-in-time [2Th2:7b-8a,9a/Dan9:27a(26)/Matt24:4.Mk13:5/Rev6:2])

--and OF that specific, limited, future "time-period," Rev1:1 had said, "which must come to pass IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" (not the ADVERBS of "soon," "quickLY," or "immediateLY," that is, NOT that which would transpire and unfold upon the earth over some 2000 years, as the Historicist view has it [though I understand that is your view ]). I believe this particular, specific, limited time-period refers to the entire, future "7-yr" period [see again 2Th2:9a/Dan9:27a(26)] and runs concurrently with that SAME "time period" using those SAME words "IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" in both Lk18:8[/chpt17-end context]'s "AVENGE IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" [this is NOT happening "NOW"] and Rom16:20's "shall bruise Satan UNDER YOUR feet IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" [this is NOT happening YET--this is one of the purposes of our RELOCATION (i.e. our Rapture... IN THE AIR), though most of the events of that time period will be unfolding upon the earth (during those 7y)--By "our," I refer to "the Church which is His body" (all believers of "this present age [singular]") to whom the "Rapture" SOLELY pertains--Ppl will be coming to faith FOLLOWING our Rapture, however, as the events of the 7-yr period unfold upon the earth; IOW, the Olivet Discourse is NOT covering the SUBJECT pertaining to "the Church which is His body" and its "Rapture [IN THE AIR]," but those to whom the promised and prophesied EARTHLY Millennial Kingdom, was promised]



It is for these reasons, and more, that the Historicist viewpoint remains unconvincing to me.

^ Sorry, EDIT (too late to do this in the original): messed up in the above, regarding...

I had meant to talk about "abominationS/abominaTION" (Dan9:27; Matt24:15) but also "desolationS/desolaTION" (Dan9:26; Dan12:11) and it is HERE where I goofed and made mistakes in the above post regarding the singular and plural usages of the former ("abominationS/abominaTION"), which is what I would need to EDIT in the above... thus resulting in another point that separates and covers each of these words in a more accurate way than what I put! (which is not correct, in the above post--plz disregard that aspect... needs CORRECTION... no time ATM, tho… )

So much for trying to work in haste! argh...

Though necessary, that edit limit is a pain in the side.

'it' => the phrase "But before all these" in Luke 21:12

in the [same] chapter before [the phrase]

"my bad"...

I suppose I could have found a better way to word it.