View Poll Results: Did the Abomination of Desolation already occur?

Voters
19. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    8 42.11%
  • No

    11 57.89%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 30

Thread: Preterist fallacies? or not?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    3,373
    Blog Entries
    21

    Preterist fallacies? or not?

    A friend stated that the AoD hasn't happened and cited a handy list of anti-preterist assertions. (For fun I inserted a poll)

    I would like it if subsequent posts would address these points (or 2-3). I'm curious how they hold up and I know that there are a number of non-preterists that agree that 70 AD was the AoD.

    For reference, Jesus said of the AoD: (1) Armies would surround Jerusalem. (2) Flee (3) Then there would be great tribulation
    Matt 24:15 “So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 16then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

    Luke 21:20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. 21Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains,




    Orignal quote:
    There was no AoD in 70 AD. We know this for a large number of reasons:
    1) The church didn't record that it ever happened, and continued to look for such an event in the future.

    Luke's Gospel confirms that the AoD is the event in which Jerusalem is desolated by Armies. If anyone agrees that the AoD is a physical event, there I see no purpose here in using what the church records as the only evidence. General History plainly records the event did occur (see #2) as the church fled according to prophecy, and was not present to record it.
    Josephus records the historical fact that it occured.


    2) There is no historical record of an AoD in 70AD, not by Josephus or anyone else.
    This is being unnecessarily pedantic about historical Vs prophetic records (prophetic records don't exist as no prophets had a commission to write anything). Josephus recorded history for the Romans, not Christians, he was also a captive Jewish Zealot (perhaps with mixed loyalty). His writings were for a Roman audience, and he was not a follower of Jesus, so his record of events would never have colored the events in the light of fulfilling prophecies which did not fit either his Zealot, or Roman affiliations. Josephus records history, nothing more. The prophetic people of God are qualified to assess whether those events matched Jesus' words.



    3) The AoD has to be seen FIRST, so that you can flee. However once Titus came with the armies it was TOO late to flee. So this would be a false sign.


    Again, the armies were the sign, per Luke's gospel which demonstrates the correct interpretation of Daniel in case the "reader" not be qualified to read ancient Hebrew (as Luke no doubt understood). Secondly, the AoD is clearly associated with a 3.5 year period in which a significant covenant is made. The Zealot covenant well could be that 3.5 year covenant (Sept 66 AD to March 70 AD, Passover)

    Secondly it worth pointing out that there was time to escape during Titus' set up of his siege in the winter, and that the two weeks of Nissan before Passover are the early spring, and additionally, in 70 AD, we should verify on what day of the week the siege was closed. I wonder if it was a Sabbath?!


    4) Jesus did give the sign for fleeing, which was when the armies were first seen surrounding Jerusalem. this occurred in 66 AD. Then inexplicably for historians that army went away. Then the Christians fled, without seeing an AoD.

    This is a contradictory statement and I will revise if the original author wishes. The sign for fleeing is the AoD. The AoD is armies. They are one and the same. Luke and Matthew corroborate this together. So did Christians react prematurely? Did Jesus just spook them into fleeing before the AoD.


    5) Some claim an army IS an Aod, it clearly isn't. In fact the army of 66 AD came because the Jews refused to sacrifice for Caesar any more. So if anything it was a removal of an AoD.

    Not with standing the mistake from #4 and failing to see the AoD for what Jesus said it was, this reveals a presumption of the AoD based on incorrect association with the 2nd Beast of Revelation 13. No AoD is mentioned in Revelation.

    the AoD Daniel defined is already understood as the starting point of the Tribulation, not the mid point. Daniel 9 defines the AoD as the mid point of the final "week". Therefore the the GT begins at the middle point of the final week

    Secondly, the Zealot rebels were the antithesis of true Judaism in that they rejected the Gospel and defiled the temple with civil war both in 66 AD and in 70 AD when they formed factions with and against factions of the priesthood (false priests). To describe anything they did as good or worthy of the covenant is void because they were the covenant breakers and abominators that Daniel 8 and 9 warned about!


    6) There was Great Distress in Jerusalem in 70 AD, but that didn't fit what else Jesus spoke about in Matt 24.

    Being as the Great Tribulation contains the gospel going to the whole world.... the end of the GT could not have fully completed, so of course not all things happened. Again, false predication based a premise of a 3.5 year Tribulation. (Matt 24:14). The other events, like the sun and moon darkening, are spiritual - i.e. the Gospel (sun) will be dimmer and the sea (nations) will be in dismay due to the four winds (forces of darkness causing societal stress and chaos).

    7) Jesus said ALL these things would be seen by that generation. That statement ALL includes the gathering of the elect and His return. That clearly didn't happen in 70 AD, so to base your claim upon this word and what it means, either you need to go the whole way and say it all already happened (which I think clearly did not), or else you have to recognize that the way it is being understood is incorrect.

    Note: Jesus explicit words were that "all these anyhow might-be"

    We agree that this passage is hard to understand. Since Jesus hasn't returned in the clouds, and we will not say he lied to that generation, we must evaluate the options left.

    A) Nothing Jesus predicted did happen in that Generation, and he was misleading by not explaining a prophetic wormhole whereby two different generations are linked across a long span of time....or

    B) Something did happen as Jesus predicted (armies) and therefore these things did come to be (occur or "might become") and they simply have not ended.

    Choosing B becomes the better option when studying the words in Greek a bit more in detail and appreciating a context besides the common English translations.

    As the "thief" in the night, Christ is going to suddenly appear on the throne of Israel - not the antichrist.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,998
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Preterist fallacies? or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aijalon View Post
    A friend stated that the AoD hasn't happened and cited a handy list of anti-preterist assertions. (For fun I inserted a poll)

    I would like it if subsequent posts would address these points (or 2-3). I'm curious how they hold up and I know that there are a number of non-preterists that agree that 70 AD was the AoD.

    For reference, Jesus said of the AoD: (1) Armies would surround Jerusalem. (2) Flee (3) Then there would be great tribulation
    First error is that Jesus did NOT say of the AoD, that armies would surround Jerusalem. He said of the AoD as written by Daniel, so that should be our connective.

    Those who hold that Luke 21:20 is speaking of the same event as Matt 24:15 have to explain why Luke wrote an entirely different sign. The way this is usually reconciled is by those holding this view, that Luke was writing for Gentiles and Matthew for Jews. However this would mean that they are saying that neither actually recorded Jesus' words, but that it is an approximation of what Jesus said. Personally I don't hold to that view of scripture.
    When this is highlighted, then the next idea is that two related signs were spoken of by Jesus. IOW Jesus spoke of BOTH an AoD and armies.
    Now which armies and what AoD?
    Well there were armies seen in 66 AD which then left and the church saw the prophecy and left. No AoD seen at that time, and as we have two signs it means that the sign of armies is NOT the same sign as the AoD.
    If it is attempted to make the armies which commit the AoD be the sign (IOW a single bi-faceted sign), then the problem is that when those armies surrounded Jerusalem it was then too late to flee. This would make the sign redundant.
    Further IF this army committed the AoD, then this was AFTER they stormed the city, and so again clearly too late to be of any use as a sign.

    I know of almost no non-preterists (partial) who think the AoD has been fulfilled. Most Amils, who are also mainly partial preterists do think it has been fulfilled.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,998
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Preterist fallacies? or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aijalon View Post
    Matt 24:15 “So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 16then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

    Luke 21:20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. 21Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains,

    [B]
    Orignal quote:
    There was no AoD in 70 AD. We know this for a large number of reasons:
    1) The church didn't record that it ever happened, and continued to look for such an event in the future.

    Luke's Gospel confirms that the AoD is the event in which Jerusalem is desolated by Armies. If anyone agrees that the AoD is a physical event, there I see no purpose here in using what the church records as the only evidence. General History plainly records the event did occur (see #2) as the church fled according to prophecy, and was not present to record it.
    Josephus records the historical fact that it occured.
    Luke makes no mention of an Abomination, only of armies which will SURROUND the city. Nothing about that army making it desolate.
    If the church, who is looking for an AoD don't think what occurs as being an AoD then this is incredibly relevant.

    2) There is no historical record of an AoD in 70AD, not by Josephus or anyone else.
    This is being unnecessarily pedantic about historical Vs prophetic records (prophetic records don't exist as no prophets had a commission to write anything). Josephus recorded history for the Romans, not Christians, he was also a captive Jewish Zealot (perhaps with mixed loyalty). His writings were for a Roman audience, and he was not a follower of Jesus, so his record of events would never have colored the events in the light of fulfilling prophecies which did not fit either his Zealot, or Roman affiliations. Josephus records history, nothing more. The prophetic people of God are qualified to assess whether those events matched Jesus' words.
    Well if there is NO historical record AND NO prophetic record, then upon what record do you make your claim?
    Josephus was one person who was a first hand witness and he would have written about an Abomination of Desolation, as that is NOT solely a Christian thing, but actually Jewish, and he was THE Jewish historian at that time. He does note many things which occurred, including the destruction of the sanctuary, yet makes no note in all his writings of something which would be of great import for the Jews.


    3) The AoD has to be seen FIRST, so that you can flee. However once Titus came with the armies it was TOO late to flee. So this would be a false sign.

    Again, the armies were the sign, per Luke's gospel which demonstrates the correct interpretation of Daniel in case the "reader" not be qualified to read ancient Hebrew (as Luke no doubt understood). Secondly, the AoD is clearly associated with a 3.5 year period in which a significant covenant is made. The Zealot covenant well could be that 3.5 year covenant (Sept 66 AD to March 70 AD, Passover)

    The covenant is for 7 years, not 3.5 years. Further you are making Luke INTERPRET what Jesus said. Luke didn't do that when he was quoting Jesus' words. Further Luke wasn't being in the position of the "reader". He is recording the part of the Discourse which he was told.

    Secondly it worth pointing out that there was time to escape during Titus' set up of his siege in the winter, and that the two weeks of Nissan before Passover are the early spring, and additionally, in 70 AD, we should verify on what day of the week the siege was closed. I wonder if it was a Sabbath?!
    Nope, Luke says "when you see Jerusalem surrounded..." IOW the sign is that Jerusalem IS surrounded. AT THAT point in time there is no escape. Before it is surrounded, whilst the army is coming etc. THEN you could potentially still escape, however the sign is NOT "when you see an army approaching Jerusalem..."

    4) Jesus did give the sign for fleeing, which was when the armies were first seen surrounding Jerusalem. this occurred in 66 AD. Then inexplicably for historians that army went away. Then the Christians fled, without seeing an AoD.

    This is a contradictory statement and I will revise if the original author wishes. The sign for fleeing is the AoD. The AoD is armies. They are one and the same. Luke and Matthew corroborate this together. So did Christians react prematurely? Did Jesus just spook them into fleeing before the AoD.
    In what way is this a contradictory statement? The Christians fled because they saw the sign stated by Jesus as being fulfilled. That sign is the sign given in Luke 21 "When you see Jerusalem surrounded..." That is what happened in 66AD. Jerusalem was surrounded. Sign fulfilled. So no requirement for an AoD to be seen UNLESS you claim that an AoD is EXACTLY the same as an Army surrounding Jerusalem. Clearly it was not.

    5) Some claim an army IS an Aod, it clearly isn't. In fact the army of 66 AD came because the Jews refused to sacrifice for Caesar any more. So if anything it was a removal of an AoD.

    Not with standing the mistake from #4 and failing to see the AoD for what Jesus said it was, this reveals a presumption of the AoD based on incorrect association with the 2nd Beast of Revelation 13. No AoD is mentioned in Revelation.
    Nope, this doesn't require a single connection with the beast of Rev 13. Rev 13 wasn't even written at this time. (Though some claim it was and that this IS fulfilled in 70 AD - that though is another discussion). Jesus connected the AoD with what Daniel wrote. What therefore Daniel wrote is KEY for understanding what the AoD was in the past, and will be in the future.
    We KNOW the historical AoD which was set up by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. This was an image set up in the Holies, the sacrifice of a pig on the altar and then the removal of the daily sacrifices. Of these ONLY the removal of the daily sacrifices occurred, and that AFTER it was TOO late to flee.

    the AoD Daniel defined is already understood as the starting point of the Tribulation, not the mid point. Daniel 9 defines the AoD as the mid point of the final "week". Therefore the the GT begins at the middle point of the final week

    So then when is the AoD? If 70 AD, then that means the covenant was made 3.5 years earlier and continue for a further 3.5 years. Didn't happen around 70 AD.

    Secondly, the Zealot rebels were the antithesis of true Judaism in that they rejected the Gospel and defiled the temple with civil war both in 66 AD and in 70 AD when they formed factions with and against factions of the priesthood (false priests). To describe anything they did as good or worthy of the covenant is void because they were the covenant breakers and abominators that Daniel 8 and 9 warned about!
    An interesting claim. Did they stop the daily sacrifices? Did they defile the temple in 66 AD? No to both. Did they make a covenant with the many for a week? No.
    So clearly the Zealots are not in view here.

    6) There was Great Distress in Jerusalem in 70 AD, but that didn't fit what else Jesus spoke about in Matt 24.
    Being as the Great Tribulation contains the gospel going to the whole world.... the end of the GT could not have fully completed, so of course not all things happened. Again, false predication based a premise of a 3.5 year Tribulation. (Matt 24:14). The other events, like the sun and moon darkening, are spiritual - i.e. the Gospel (sun) will be dimmer and the sea (nations) will be in dismay due to the four winds (forces of darkness causing societal stress and chaos).
    Now this is a different claim - why claim the sun and moon darkening is spiritual? It happened literally in fulfillment of Joel 2, so why claim it won't be literal in the future?

    7) Jesus said ALL these things would be seen by that generation. That statement ALL includes the gathering of the elect and His return. That clearly didn't happen in 70 AD, so to base your claim upon this word and what it means, either you need to go the whole way and say it all already happened (which I think clearly did not), or else you have to recognize that the way it is being understood is incorrect.
    [INDENT]Note: Jesus explicit words were that "all these anyhow might-be"

    We agree that this passage is hard to understand. Since Jesus hasn't returned in the clouds, and we will not say he lied to that generation, we must evaluate the options left.
    A) Nothing Jesus predicted did happen in that Generation, and he was misleading by not explaining a prophetic wormhole whereby two different generations are linked across a long span of time....or
    B) Something did happen as Jesus predicted (armies) and therefore these things did come to be (occur or "might become") and they simply have not ended.
    Actually B) doesn't work, because if you take that view then all it needs is one part to have been started. Well that started in 36 / 37 AD with the death of Stephen and persecution broke out against the church.
    No what other options are:
    C) It is speaking of a FUTURE generation, when these things will occur. This unfortunately has the same problem as B) above, only in reverse.

    D) That the word generation doesn't mean 40 years. We know that most of those who heard the words of Jesus were dead BEFORE 70 AD happened, so they didn't see it. Instead we understand the word generation as used elsewhere:
    Psa 14:5 There they are in great terror, for God is with the generation of the righteous.

    Psa 24:3 Who shall ascend the hill of the LORD? And who shall stand in his holy place?
    Psa 24:4 He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false and does not swear deceitfully.
    Psa 24:5 He will receive blessing from the LORD and righteousness from the God of his salvation.
    Psa 24:6 Such is the generation of those who seek him, who seek the face of the God of Jacob. Selah.

    Psa 112:2 His offspring will be mighty in the land; the generation of the upright will be blessed.

    Php 2:15 that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world,

    G1074
    γενεά
    genea
    ghen-eh-ah'
    From (a presumed derivative of) G1085; a generation; by implication an age (the period or the persons): - age, generation, nation, time.

    This word is from:
    G1085
    γένος
    genos
    ghen'-os
    From G1096; “kin” (abstractly or concretely, literally or figuratively, individually or collectively): - born, country (-man), diversity, generation, kind (-red), nation, offspring, stock.

    So the usage of the word doesn't mean 40 years, but instead those of this genea - that is nation

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    3,373
    Blog Entries
    21

    Re: Preterist fallacies? or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    First error is that Jesus did NOT say of the AoD, that armies would surround Jerusalem. He said of the AoD as written by Daniel, so that should be our connective.

    Those who hold that Luke 21:20 is speaking of the same event as Matt 24:15 have to explain why Luke wrote an entirely different sign. The way this is usually reconciled is by those holding this view, that Luke was writing for Gentiles and Matthew for Jews. However this would mean that they are saying that neither actually recorded Jesus' words, but that it is an approximation of what Jesus said. Personally I don't hold to that view of scripture.
    When this is highlighted, then the next idea is that two related signs were spoken of by Jesus. IOW Jesus spoke of BOTH an AoD and armies.
    Now which armies and what AoD?
    Well there were armies seen in 66 AD which then left and the church saw the prophecy and left. No AoD seen at that time, and as we have two signs it means that the sign of armies is NOT the same sign as the AoD.
    If it is attempted to make the armies which commit the AoD be the sign (IOW a single bi-faceted sign), then the problem is that when those armies surrounded Jerusalem it was then too late to flee. This would make the sign redundant.
    Further IF this army committed the AoD, then this was AFTER they stormed the city, and so again clearly too late to be of any use as a sign.

    I know of almost no non-preterists (partial) who think the AoD has been fulfilled. Most Amils, who are also mainly partial preterists do think it has been fulfilled.
    Jesus' Olivet Discourse occured, then, at two times? And you would then have to be claiming that he repeated himself almost-but-not-quite the same way, so that he could give a Jewish sign, and then give a Gentile sign in separate occasions? If you actually read Luke 21, it also includes the exact same things after the armies as Matthew does for the AoD.

    If there was ever a case where summarization occured, surely it is Luke's second hand account. Matthew recorded Jesus' explicit words. Take as an example the varying accounts of the ancestry of Jesus between the two. Quite different. Luke writes things "as was supposed". He wrote precisely what the Jews of that day understood out of Jesus teachings.

    Answer then what is the real sign of the fig tree? The Jewish one, or the Gentile one?

    Personally, your view invites too many problems. In my view, the only "problem" is to ascertain whether or not Luke did not write verbatim. When comparing the two texts, if you insist that each of them was verbatim in it's own time, then you would really have Jesus walking through a lot of towns twice and saying things twice. That to me makes zero sense. The accounts must be the same, recorded with differences that actually help us fill in the blanks.
    As the "thief" in the night, Christ is going to suddenly appear on the throne of Israel - not the antichrist.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Outside of the box. Where else?
    Posts
    18,132

    Re: Preterist fallacies? or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aijalon View Post
    Jesus' Olivet Discourse occured, then, at two times? And you would then have to be claiming that he repeated himself almost-but-not-quite the same way, so that he could give a Jewish sign, and then give a Gentile sign in separate occasions? If you actually read Luke 21, it also includes the exact same things after the armies as Matthew does for the AoD.

    If there was ever a case where summarization occured, surely it is Luke's second hand account. Matthew recorded Jesus' explicit words. Take as an example the varying accounts of the ancestry of Jesus between the two. Quite different. Luke writes things "as was supposed". He wrote precisely what the Jews of that day understood out of Jesus teachings.

    Answer then what is the real sign of the fig tree? The Jewish one, or the Gentile one?

    Personally, your view invites too many problems. In my view, the only "problem" is to ascertain whether or not Luke did not write verbatim. When comparing the two texts, if you insist that each of them was verbatim in it's own time, then you would really have Jesus walking through a lot of towns twice and saying things twice. That to me makes zero sense. The accounts must be the same, recorded with differences that actually help us fill in the blanks.
    Your logic on this is pretty similar to mine on this. I therefore see a lot of this not making sense either if in Luke 21 Jesus was meaning the events surrounding 70 AD, but in the same identical context in Matt 24 and Mark 13 He wasn't.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,998
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Preterist fallacies? or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aijalon View Post
    Jesus' Olivet Discourse occured, then, at two times? And you would then have to be claiming that he repeated himself almost-but-not-quite the same way, so that he could give a Jewish sign, and then give a Gentile sign in separate occasions? If you actually read Luke 21, it also includes the exact same things after the armies as Matthew does for the AoD.
    It is one long discourse. It starts in the Temple, and Luke has most of what he has put as being spoken of there, whereas Matthew has most of what he records as spoken of there.
    However there are a large number of important differences, which as you get into them, you realise that Jesus speaks of TWO separate occasions when Jerusalem will be attacked.
    So I would say, no Luke does NOT record the exact same things as Matthew.
    For example, in Matthew there is an urgency to flee:
    Mat 24:17 Let the one who is on the housetop not go down to take what is in his house,
    Mat 24:18 and let the one who is in the field not turn back to take his cloak.
    Mat 24:19 And alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days!
    Mat 24:20 Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath.
    Mat 24:21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be.
    Mat 24:22 And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.

    Pray your flight is not in the winter or on a Sabbath, means a very short period of time in which to flee. So we should expect to find that at the time there wasn't much time.
    Yet in 66 AD there was a couple of years.
    What does Luke write?
    Luk 21:20 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near.
    Luk 21:21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it,
    Luk 21:22 for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written.
    Luk 21:23 Alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! For there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people.

    Notice that there is no imperative to a speedy fleeing. You should also notice that in Luke there is wrath against THIS people (meaning the Jews), but in Matthew it is ALL human beings.

    You may also notice that in Luke it is great distress, but in Matthew it is tribulation which is never to be equaled. That wasn't true of 70 AD. It was bad, but it has been equaled and even surpassed.

    If there was ever a case where summarization occured, surely it is Luke's second hand account. Matthew recorded Jesus' explicit words. Take as an example the varying accounts of the ancestry of Jesus between the two. Quite different. Luke writes things "as was supposed". He wrote precisely what the Jews of that day understood out of Jesus teachings.
    So are you claiming that when Luke wrote what Jesus said in Luke 21, it wasn't actually what Jesus said? It is one thing to say that Luke put only some of the words, but another to say that Luke changed the words.

    Answer then what is the real sign of the fig tree? The Jewish one, or the Gentile one?
    You could easily have both. The fig tree speaks of understanding the times. Do you understand the times as stated by Jesus?

    Personally, your view invites too many problems. In my view, the only "problem" is to ascertain whether or not Luke did not write verbatim. When comparing the two texts, if you insist that each of them was verbatim in it's own time, then you would really have Jesus walking through a lot of towns twice and saying things twice. That to me makes zero sense. The accounts must be the same, recorded with differences that actually help us fill in the blanks.
    My view has ZERO problems. Yours requires Luke to not write what Jesus said, but his own words. That by itself is a major problem. However what you are reaching for and not quite getting to, is that Luke has things from the Olivet Discourse which Matthew doesn't record and vice versa. Luke's is stated as being in relation to the temple as seen here:
    Luk 21:1 Jesus looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the offering box,
    Luk 21:2 and he saw a poor widow put in two small copper coins.
    Luk 21:3 And he said, "Truly, I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them.
    Luk 21:4 For they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on."
    Luk 21:5 And while some were speaking of the temple, how it was adorned with noble stones and offerings, he said,
    Luk 21:6 "As for these things that you see, the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down."
    Luk 21:7 And they asked him, "Teacher, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?"

    So clearly the context of Luke is the temple and the stones. Matthew though goes on from there to this:
    Mat 24:3 As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"
    Mat 24:4 And Jesus answered them, "See that no one leads you astray.
    Mat 24:5 For many will come in my name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and they will lead many astray.

    So Luke concentrates on two things ONLY - when will these things be (the temple being destroyed) and what will be the sign this will be about to happen (the temple). Matthew however has two other questions in addition to the first one. What will be the sign of your coming (which didn't occur in 70 AD), what is the sign of the end of the age (which didn't occur in 70AD).
    So we should expect ALL 4 questions to be answered within the whole of the Olivet Discourse.
    Now IF you make Matt 24 about 70 AD along with Luke 21, then you don't answer the questions.
    What you need to grasp is that Jerusalem is at the center of the Lucan discourse, and it is for Matthew's, but the two are separated by a long period of time.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,998
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Preterist fallacies? or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD View Post
    Your logic on this is pretty similar to mine on this. I therefore see a lot of this not making sense either if in Luke 21 Jesus was meaning the events surrounding 70 AD, but in the same identical context in Matt 24 and Mark 13 He wasn't.
    The difference between you and Aijalon is that he sees Luke 21 and Matt 24 as BOTH being 70 AD. yet you KNOW that the Great Tribulation of Matt 24 ends with Jesus' return.
    Aijalon gets around that problem (in theory) by having the Great Tribulation meaning a Great period of time. The problme with such a claim though is that we are specifically told:
    Mat 24:22 And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.

    Which contradicts Aijalon's idea.

    I guess I am going to have to find my compilation of the verses and show you how it may have gone.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Outside of the box. Where else?
    Posts
    18,132

    Re: Preterist fallacies? or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    So Luke concentrates on two things ONLY - when will these things be (the temple being destroyed) and what will be the sign this will be about to happen (the temple).

    If this is the case, assuming some of it is meaning the events surrounding 70 AD, how can Luke 21:25-36 also be in regards to the events surrounding 70 AD? It can't, so why say what you did then, what I have you quoted as saying in this reply? Assuming you are correct about the two things you mentioned, and when one adds Luke 21:25-36, that would then equal 3 things not 2 things.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Outside of the box. Where else?
    Posts
    18,132

    Re: Preterist fallacies? or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    The difference between you and Aijalon is that he sees Luke 21 and Matt 24 as BOTH being 70 AD. yet you KNOW that the Great Tribulation of Matt 24 ends with Jesus' return.
    Aijalon gets around that problem (in theory) by having the Great Tribulation meaning a Great period of time. The problme with such a claim though is that we are specifically told:
    Mat 24:22 And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.

    Which contradicts Aijalon's idea.

    I guess I am going to have to find my compilation of the verses and show you how it may have gone.
    I don't agree with a Preterist view of these Scriptures. I only agree that all 3 accounts are referring to the same events. As to finding the compilation of the verses and show how it may have gone...that for sure might be helpful. Hopefully you can find them then.

    Personally it doesn't matter to me one way or the other if Luke 21 is meaning past or future. Wouldn't affect my theology at all, as long as the Matt 24 and Mark 13 accounts don't have to be meaning 70 AD as well. Currently though, I just can't see 2 of those accounts being about the future, and one of them being about the past, especially when identical things are said in all 3 accounts.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,998
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Preterist fallacies? or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD View Post
    If this is the case, assuming some of it is meaning the events surrounding 70 AD, how can Luke 21:25-36 also be in regards to the events surrounding 70 AD? It can't, so why say what you did then, what I have you quoted as saying in this reply? Assuming you are correct about the two things you mentioned, and when one adds Luke 21:25-36, that would then equal 3 things not 2 things.
    I put that Luke CONCENTRATES on two things. However that doesn't mean he doesn't record some of the other things stated at that time.
    In fact ONLY verses 27 & 28 are really about His return.
    The KEY part under discussion is Jerusalem. That aspect is written by Luke in 21:20-24 which ends in 70 AD with Jerusalem being trampled.
    Matthew though CONCENTRATES on the other two things, but the Jerusalem destruction bit is Matt 24:15 - 22, and is immediately followed by Jesus return (which is therefore the sign of His coming) and we are also given the sign of the End of this age (which is the AoD in Jerusalem).
    We are also told by Paul what that AoD is:
    2Th 2:3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,
    2Th 2:4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.

    This matches to some degree what A4E did in fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy in Dan 8.
    This would have been known by the church as 2 Thessalonians was written before 66 AD.

    It also matches this:
    Rev 13:15 And it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast might even speak and might cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be slain.
    (But this is an added extra).

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,998
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Preterist fallacies? or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD View Post
    I don't agree with a Preterist view of these Scriptures. I only agree that all 3 accounts are referring to the same events. As to finding the compilation of the verses and show how it may have gone...that for sure might be helpful. Hopefully you can find them then.

    Personally it doesn't matter to me one way or the other if Luke 21 is meaning past or future. Wouldn't affect my theology at all, as long as the Matt 24 and Mark 13 accounts don't have to be meaning 70 AD as well. Currently though, I just can't see 2 of those accounts being about the future, and one of them being about the past, especially when identical things are said in all 3 accounts.
    Well then, your problem is that Luke 21 ONLY matches 70 AD. I see that Matt 24 ONLY matches the future event. For me I find so many differences between them, and that ALL 4 questions must be answered (that is 70 AD must be shown in it) as well as the future return. So where in your understanding does the stones not being on top of each other get stated in this Discourse?
    Maybe if I get time tomorrow I will find this compilation of verses so that you can see it as being 3 accounts, with aspects of BOTH times, but Luke 21 focused on 70 AD and Matt 24 focused on the End.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Outside of the box. Where else?
    Posts
    18,132

    Re: Preterist fallacies? or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    So where in your understanding does the stones not being on top of each other get stated in this Discourse?

    That for sure can be meaning what happened in 70 AD and likely is referring to that. But we're told that in all 3 accounts. Are you then concluding Luke 21 answers that part, but not Matt 24 and Mark 13 as well?

    Luke 21:22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

    This sounds profound to me. It sounds like it's talking about something on a grand scale like no other. As bad as the events of 70 AD was, somehow I just don't see the events of 70 AD fitting this verse.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    3,373
    Blog Entries
    21

    Re: Preterist fallacies? or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Aijalon gets around that problem (in theory) by having the Great Tribulation meaning a Great period of time. The problme with such a claim though is that we are specifically told:
    Mat 24:22 And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.

    Which contradicts Aijalon's idea.
    no contradiction at all. The days of the GT (without specifying how long those days are since it doesn't say) are to be cut off. The term cut short isn't the same as "short" there is a HUGE difference. I actually don't get around anything. I untie a knot created by false pretenses created by English translation.
    As the "thief" in the night, Christ is going to suddenly appear on the throne of Israel - not the antichrist.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    3,373
    Blog Entries
    21

    Re: Preterist fallacies? or not?

    Good evening!
    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Luke makes no mention of an Abomination, only of armies which will SURROUND the city. Nothing about that army making it desolate.
    If the church, who is looking for an AoD don't think what occurs as being an AoD then this is incredibly relevant.
    this is nonsense. The church was commanded to understand Daniel to understand the AoD. Jerusalem is desolated as defined by Daniel 9:27. Daniel doesn't need to say armies desolate it. Desolation comes in one form or another, and the reason's why, Daniel explains.

    You don't seem to say so, but it seems you also predicate the AoD as "looked for" by the church as if it were literally "standing". Do you think the AoD is a man standing in the temple? If that is the case, you jumped way ahead and presumed something the church of Jerusalem didn't know about in either 66 or 70 AD. Revelation doesn't apply to 70 AD because it wasn't written.

    Well if there is NO historical record AND NO prophetic record, then upon what record do you make your claim?
    Wo! That was your claim I repeated! I asserted that there is a historical record.
    Josephus was one person who was a first hand witness and he would have written about an Abomination of Desolation, as that is NOT solely a Christian thing, but actually Jewish, and he was THE Jewish historian at that time. He does note many things which occurred, including the destruction of the sanctuary, yet makes no note in all his writings of something which would be of great import for the Jews.
    On what basis "would have" Josephus written of the AoD? You clearly assume this because you are convinced that it didn't happen. Supposing it happened why would Josephus write of it? As I said, he wrote for Rome, his Roman writings recorded history for Roman posterity. The chapter on Jewish writings was closed already with Jesus. He was Jewish, and a rebel against the true covenant, he isn't a believer or prophet. Whatever you think the AoD is... spit it out.
    Further you are making Luke INTERPRET what Jesus said. Luke didn't do that when he was quoting Jesus' words.
    There are no quotes marks in the scriptures, secondly Luke 1:2 proves that Luke was not an eyewitness. The fact that Jesus said that only a reader of Daniel would understand the AoD is of huge importance. It makes absolute sense to interpret the meaning, which is no doubt what the readers of Daniel did for Luke. They provided the meaning.

    Further Luke wasn't being in the position of the "reader". He is recording the part of the Discourse which he was told.
    "the position" of Luke isn't even a question - ANYONE who knew of the Discourse was required to know Daniel or understand it. He was a historian, and he recorded what he was told.

    Nope, Luke says "when you see Jerusalem surrounded..." IOW the sign is that Jerusalem IS surrounded. AT THAT point in time there is no escape. Before it is surrounded, whilst the army is coming etc. THEN you could potentially still escape, however the sign is NOT "when you see an army approaching Jerusalem..."
    I think here is your biggest problem. Jesus -to you- commanded an impossibility. He told them to wait unti it was too late. If indeed the sign to flee was after it was too late, the urgency to flee makes zero sense, as, there was plenty of time to flee. I mean look, they were to leave and not even pack. Hello, big sign!

    Your problem here is that you are so literal that you can't see the situation as a whole. Surrounding Jerusalem isn't possible to hide. Jerusalem was fortified and defensible. Jerusalem is on a mountain. Titus' army could not have been hidden and then instantly in siege. It took weeks to position the army.

    You claim that there was no time to flee Titus' army, yet no facts support that. Jesus obviously believed that the sign was able to be seen, and flee from, and that fleeing was important, especially the day of the week was important. You really sort of debase the point of Jesus' sign because in your version of things it's nonsense.

    Jesus didn't say "when you see a siege impossible to escape from, try to escape real fast" but basically that's what your interpretation is. His words were to look for armies "encircling" Jerusalem, and that is a sign that can be seen and avoided. Your literalism is unreasonable to the text and the situation.

    last of all, I don't know of any evidence that ever records that Christians did flee at any point in the civil war. The Christians were such a minority, I think that the historical record misses this. Regardless, no record is required since the sign occurred in the time and place predicted (also in line with the sign of Jonah too).

    [QUOTE]

    We KNOW the historical AoD which was set up by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. This was an image set up in the Holies, the sacrifice of a pig on the altar and then the removal of the daily sacrifices. Of these ONLY the removal of the daily sacrifices occurred, and that AFTER it was TOO late to flee.
    This is just nonsense really. AE4 could not fulfill what Jesus said was not fulfilled in Matt 24

    So then when is the AoD? If 70 AD, then that means the covenant was made 3.5 years earlier and continue for a further 3.5 years. Didn't happen around 70 AD.
    Right, the Zealot Revolt is the best candidate I can think of which made a Abominating Covenant of Significance (a "strong covenant"). It started around Trumpets 66AD, midpoint was Passover 70 AD, same day as siege. Being as the city was destroyed, there are some possibilities going from there, depending on what you think of the gap at the middle of the week.

    An interesting claim. Did they stop the daily sacrifices? Did they defile the temple in 66 AD? No to both. Did they make a covenant with the many for a week? No.
    So clearly the Zealots are not in view here.
    Actually blood was shed, and the Roman Garrison was attacked, yes, the Temple was involved, but in any case the AoD occurs in the MIDDLE of the week, and 66AD was the start of the covenant. Again, here you don't understand that the word "many" isn't in the text. It is a covenant of "significance". You should research.


    Now this is a different claim - why claim the sun and moon darkening is spiritual? It happened literally in fulfillment of Joel 2, so why claim it won't be literal in the future?
    The reason being that Jesus affiliates it with the sea and waves.... And how was Joel 2 literal? Where did the sun go dark and the army of locusts appear? Are you referring to Peter's interpretation?


    Actually B) doesn't work, because if you take that view then all it needs is one part to have been started. Well that started in 36 / 37 AD with the death of Stephen and persecution broke out against the church.
    Don't know what you mean here. Yes, if any part started, then you have a problem. Both Matthew and Luke say the same thing, that "these things" will occur to that generation. Armies did happen, so, by your logic, the rest of the things in Luke 21 also did happen.

    No what other options are:
    C) It is speaking of a FUTURE generation, when these things will occur. This unfortunately has the same problem as B) above, only in reverse.
    Plainly false, the text says "this" generation. This is a plain alternation of the text to suit your view.


    D) That the word generation doesn't mean 40 years. We know that most of those who heard the words of Jesus were dead BEFORE 70 AD happened, so they didn't see it. Instead we understand the word generation as used elsewhere:
    Either way, the nation did end at the appointed time in 70 AD, so even if you think the sign appeared in 66 AD, you box yourself into concluding that Luke 21 must occur in total by 70 AD, knowing that Israel was destroyed.

    From G1096; “kin” (abstractly or concretely, literally or figuratively, individually or collectively): - born, country (-man), diversity, generation, kind (-red), nation, offspring, stock.

    So the usage of the word doesn't mean 40 years, but instead those of this genea - that is nation
    Doesn't matter, I think the 40 years has a prophetic significance, but either way, if you want to believe that it means the spirit of the people who lived in that day fine. You're idea of who was alive and how many ... is grasping, desperately. My point being that a generation has a very finite limit - hence Jesus' expressed warning.
    As the "thief" in the night, Christ is going to suddenly appear on the throne of Israel - not the antichrist.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,830
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Preterist fallacies? or not?

    Ive got a blog article that relates to all this. Will there be a future Abomination of Desolation?

    In short, I believe that the events of AD 70 were a 'near' fulfillment of Jesus prophecy concerning Jerusalem, but its full eschatological fulfillment will come in the future.

    Cyber.

    (ps to FHG. Im Amil - not preterist. There is a difference)
    "Your name and renown
    is the desire of our hearts."
    (Isaiah 26:8)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Why I Am Not A Preterist
    By Daniel Gracely in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: Jun 19th 2012, 12:25 AM
  2. Replies: 30
    Last Post: Apr 24th 2009, 02:58 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •