The "Already/Not Yet" Interpretation of Eschatology

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The kingdom of God is both now and future.

Excellent point Henry! This was the position I held before being dragged into an indepth study of eschatology by folks on this forum. I called it the "Already/Not Yet" position which I learned from reading Ladd's "The Presence of the Future" and Hoekema's "The Bible and the Future." Have any of you read those books?

The more I studied the more I became convinced that the "kingdom of God" is a symbol representing the Church, the Body of Christ. There are many verses that support this position. For example, Hebrews 12:22 identifies the Church as "mount Zion," "the city of the living God," and "the heavenly Jerusalem."

This is the most consistent interpretation that I have seen. The problem with the Futurist interpretation is that it has no consistent "Big Picture" at all. The Futurist doctrines are based upon a fundamentally faulty foundation that denies the main and plain things of the Bible and replaces them with unfounded fantasies and speculations. This becomes extremely obvious the moment anyone challenges the Futurist assertions. Their most egregious error is that they must assert that the prophecies of the Olivet Discourse are a mix of past and future fulfillment, but there no logically consistent way to chop up those passages into past and future.

There are, of course, problematic passages for any eschatological position. None are perfect. That's why I've concluded that Biblical eschatology is logically incoherent. This explains why nobody can agree after 2000 years of study. But if it is assumed that the Bible is logically coherent, then there is no possibility other than Preterism as far as I can tell. No Futurist eschatological system has a tenth of the Biblical support we see for Preterism.

[Twospirits]

Ram wrote,

There are, of course, problematic passages for any eschatological position. None are perfect. That's why I've concluded that Biblical eschatology is logically incoherent. This explains why nobody can agree after 2000 years of study. But if it is assumed that the Bible is logically coherent, then there is no possibility other than Preterism as far as I can tell. No Futurist eschatological system has a tenth of the Biblical support we see for Preterism.

There is a consistent logical (biblical) way seen in the OD and confirmed by the NT scriptures. It is what I have in the past discussed with you on this forum what I call the gospel/salvation age given in Mt. 28: 19-20; Acts 2:17-21, but you have rejected it, which of course is your choice.

I have since made a commentary on it and can be seen below (attachment file)for anyone who's interested in reading it. It will be seen that allowing for the gospel era (time-gap) in the Discourse, all the prophetic scriptures of the end time then fall consistently into place.

Twospirits

[Richard Amiel McGough]

There is a consistent logical (biblical) way seen in the OD and confirmed by the NT scriptures. It is what I have in the past discussed with you on this forum what I call the gospel/salvation age given in Mt. 28: 19-20; Acts 2:17-21, but you have rejected it, which of course is your choice.

I rejected your interpretation because contrary to your assertion, it was neither logical nor biblical so it was not a "choice" I made but rather a conclusion I was forced to take based on logic and facts.

There are many problems with your interpretation, the most prominent being your attempt to divide the Olivet Discourse into past and future fulfillments. The discourse simply will not allow for that. It is impossible to deny the unity of the three synoptic versions, as I have shown in my article The Synoptic Apocalypse. We discussed this at length in the thread The "ye" principle, this generation, & Mt. 24, Mark 13, Luke 21. Here is what I wrote in post #74:

OK, so now we are back to the original problem: You want to assert that Matthew and Mark record one event while Luke records another. But as I said, this is impossible because the three accounts are inextricably tangled together. Matthew and Mark agree in one part, Mark and Luke agree in another, and all three agree in a third:

• Matt 24:3 Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
• Mark 13:4 Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?
• Luke 21:7 Master, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when these things shall come to pass?

This profound "entanglement" is found throughout all three records of the Olivet Discourse. There is no logically consistently way to argue that Matthew and Mark record one event while Luke records another, especially since all three follow the same basic pattern from beginning to end as seen in this list of parallels:

• SYNOPTIC Christ predicts Destruction of the First Century Temple
• SYNOPTIC The Disciples ask, When will these things be?
• SYNOPTIC Jesus answered, Take heed that no man deceive you!
• SYNOPTIC Wars and Rumours of Wars ~ The Six Seals of Revelation
• SYNOPTIC Persecution for Jesus' Name
• SYNOPTIC The Days of Vengeance
• LUKE ONLY Christ Predicts the Dispora
• MATT/MARK The Great Tribulation
• MATT/MARK False Christs
• MATT ONLY As Lightning shineth from East to West
• SYNOPTIC The Coming of the Son of Man
• SYNOPTIC The Answer to the Question of "When?" ~ This Generation!

All three synoptic Gospels begin with the same set of six parallel passages with only minor variations, and end with the same pair of parallel passages. Thus, all but four subsections are found in each synoptic Gospel, and the parallel passages appear in the same order in all three synoptic Gospels. It seems impossible to assert that such detailed and consistent parallels could be coherently separated into two distinct events.

So now we see two issues you need to overcome: 1) the total entanglement of all three records, and 2) the strong agreement in the overall pattern of all three records. This seems to me an impossible task.

You then explained how you divide up the synoptic accounts of the Olivet Discourse into past and future:

The 1st century fulfillment events are given beginning in Mt. 24:4-14a; Mark 13:5-13b; Luke 21:8-24a.

The events that concern Christ's coming and end of the age are the events beginning from Mt. 24:14b F; Mark 13:13b F and Luke 21:24 b F.

I then explained that this was impossible because the three accounts have the same elements in the beginning, middle, and end:

OK - let's take a look at the parallel passages relating to the point that you think begins the future fulfillment:

MATTHEW 24:15-20 [FUTURE]
When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand) 16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: 17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: 18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. 19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

MARK 13:14-18 [FUTURE]
But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains: 15 And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of his house: 16 And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to take up his garment. 17 But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 18 And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter.

Now let's compare those with the parallel part from Luke that you say is past:

LUKE 21:20-23 [PAST]
And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.

See that? Exactly the same words are found in exactly the same order in all three accounts:

And when ye shall see ... desolation ... Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains ... But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days!

Given the extreme similarity between these three passages, how is it that you could think that two are future and one is past? Is that not entirely arbitrary and inconsistent?

You then CHANGED THE SUBJECT and NEVER RESPONDED to these facts that contradict your interpretation.

I think it would be great if you would like to pick up the conversation and respond to the facts I have presented.

All the best,

Richard

[Twospirits]

Ram wrote,

Originally Posted by RAM
OK - let's take a look at the parallel passages relating to the point that you think begins the future fulfillment:

MATTHEW 24:15-20 [FUTURE]
When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand) 16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: 17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: 18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. 19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

MARK 13:14-18 [FUTURE]
But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains: 15 And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of his house: 16 And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to take up his garment. 17 But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 18 And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter.

Now let's compare those with the parallel part from Luke that you say is past:

LUKE 21:20-23 [PAST]
And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.

See that? Exactly the same words are found in exactly the same order in all three accounts:

And when ye shall see ... desolation ... Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains ... But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days!

Given the extreme similarity between these three passages, how is it that you could think that two are future and one is past? Is that not entirely arbitrary and inconsistent?

You then CHANGED THE SUBJECT and NEVER RESPONDED to these facts that contradict your interpretation.

I think it would be great if you would like to pick up the conversation and respond to the facts I have presented.

I never responded because if you look to the thread, you'll see it got buried in the on-going discussion on the issue of the 'gospel/salvation age' and 'end of the age' between us and other posters. But so it won't be said that I didn't respond, I will respond below to the points you brought up. As to 'picking up the conversation,' what can be said that I haven't said in the link (Discourse 1 pdf) I gave for you and anyone who wishes to read it? It makes clear where I stand on the eschatological views of scripture.

As to your points:

The city of Jerusalem lay in the district of Judea, and this is why Christ mentions Judea.
The warnings to flee, though similar, do not in themselves prove that they speak of the same event and time-frame. Jerusalem was compassed with armies on many occasions after the discourse was delivered including 70 AD, 132, 639, 1099, 1187, etc. where people fled.

The destruction of Jerusalem involves 'vengeance' and severe judgment upon the Jews. In contrast, the coming of Christ at the end of the age will bring deliverance to those saints. Luke does not say that this 'great distress' will be the greatest time of distress the world has ever known, but the tribulation which is associated with the Lord’s coming and the end of the age is so described. Mt.24:21-22, 'For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.'

The phrase 'no life' or 'no flesh' (Mt. 24:22) indicates all humanity and not a certain group (Mt. 25:31-32). It appears that Satan’s effort to destroy God's people would result in the total annihilation of all humanity, were it not for Christ’s intervention at the Second Advent. This fact provides us with further insight into the purposes of Christ’s return. The term 'the elect" is used three times by Jesus in the Olivet discourse (Matthew 14:22, 24, 31; also in Mark 13:20, 22, 27), all three refer to the same entity. The term 'the elect' refers to both Jew and Gentile saints who believe in our Lord Jesus Christ. (Romans 8:33; Colossians 3:12; 2 Timothy 2:10; Titus 1:1).

Jesus speaks of a event/sign connected with the holy place- its desecration by an abomination prophesied by Daniel. What 'holy place' is being spoken of here by Jesus? Was the 'holy place' that was to be desecrated the same 'Temple' as the one predicted to be destroyed in Luke? There are a number of contrasts within this text that indicate that Jesus was talking about two different things.

The text Jesus cited concerning the Temple's desecration in Daniel 9:27 predicts that the one who desecrates this Temple will himself be destroyed. By contrast, those who destroyed the Temple in A.D.70, the Romans were not destroyed but returned to Rome in triumph carrying vessels from the destroyed Temple.

The prophecy in Dan. 9:27 and 12:11-12 is said to be about Daniel's people. Was Daniel an apostate or a saint? He was a saint. The vision told to Daniel is about God's holy people (not apostates) in whom we were grafted in, in which we then become included in the vision (Dan. 10:14). The NC was brought in through Christ after the 69 weeks (Dan. 9:26), where 40 years later the city and sanctuary would be destroyed as we read there. This ends the 'latter days' for apostate Israel. The 'time of the end' comes in a future time for God's holy people (See Dan. 12:1,4,7). The fulfillment of the vision comes at the time of the end (12:9) when the 'power of the holy people (not apostate Jews) have been accomplished' (12:7).

In Daniel's 'the holy place,' we see it is to "anoint," (Dan. 9:24) not destroy the sanctuary as seen in Dan. 9:26, showing again that the 70 sevens cannot have been fulfilled in 70 A.D., because the Jerusalem sanctuary was destroyed by the Romans; 'this' sanctuary in Dan. 9:24 is to be "anointed."

The literal translation in Dan. 9:24 is the Holy of holies. This expression appears forty-six times in the Old Testament, and it is never used of the Messiah (to anoint), it is never used of a "person." The expression always refers to the temple, the Holy of holies, or furniture or articles used in temple worship. The Holy of holies is mentioned in Ezek. 41:4 and Ezek. 43:12, in Ezekiel's vision of the temple measuring.

Twospirits

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I never responded because if you look to the thread, you'll see it got buried in the on-going discussion on the issue of the 'gospel/salvation age' and 'end of the age' between us and other posters. But so it won't be said that I didn't respond, I will respond below to the points you brought up. As to 'picking up the conversation,' what can be said that I haven't said in the link (Discourse 1 pdf) I gave for you and anyone who wishes to read it? It makes clear where I stand on the eschatological views of scripture.

Understood. I'm glad you are taking time to answer now.

The city of Jerusalem lay in the district of Judea, and this is why Christ mentions Judea.
The warnings to flee, though similar, do not in themselves prove that they speak of the same event and time-frame. Jerusalem was compassed with armies on many occasions after the discourse was delivered including 70 AD, 132, 639, 1099, 1187, etc. where people fled.

It is obvious that Christ was talking about 70 AD because the entire discourse in all three versions began with his prediction of the destruction of the Temple which happened in 70 AD.

You are not dealing with the facts I have presented. Exactly the same words are found in exactly the same order in all three accounts:

And when ye shall see ... desolation ... Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains ... But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days!

You say that these same words refer to a future event in Matthew and Mark, and a past event in Luke. If you were correct, it would mean that the Bible is deliberately deceptive and utterly incoherent and indeceipherable. Anyone reading three parallel accounts that use the same words would understand that they are speaking of the same events.

There is no way to split up the unified synoptic discourse without doing great violence to Scripure and ripping it into shreds. If the three versions are not unified, the entire Bible is reduced to meaningless gibberish. Nothing could be confirmed with any certainty at all.

The destruction of Jerusalem involves 'vengeance' and severe judgment upon the Jews. In contrast, the coming of Christ at the end of the age will bring deliverance to those saints. Luke does not say that this 'great distress' will be the greatest time of distress the world has ever known, but the tribulation which is associated with the Lord’s coming and the end of the age is so described. Mt.24:21-22, 'For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.'

The saints (Christians) in Jerusalem were delivered from the apostate rule of the Jews who were imprisoning, torturing, and killing them, exactly as stated in the Bible.

Mark 13:9 But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.

This cannot be future because there will never again be a time when the Jews are dragging Christians into synagogues to be beaten.

Josephus had no problem saying that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD was the "greatest time of distress the world has ever known." Of course, everyone understands that was hyperbole.

The phrase 'no life' or 'no flesh' (Mt. 24:22) indicates all humanity and not a certain group (Mt. 25:31-32). It appears that Satan’s effort to destroy God's people would result in the total annihilation of all humanity, were it not for Christ’s intervention at the Second Advent. This fact provides us with further insight into the purposes of Christ’s return. The term 'the elect" is used three times by Jesus in the Olivet discourse (Matthew 14:22, 24, 31; also in Mark 13:20, 22, 27), all three refer to the same entity. The term 'the elect' refers to both Jew and Gentile saints who believe in our Lord Jesus Christ. (Romans 8:33; Colossians 3:12; 2 Timothy 2:10; Titus 1:1).

Your assertion does not follow. The phrase "no flesh" obviously refers to those living in Judea. That is established by context.

There is nothing in the Olivet Discourse that talks about the entire planet earth. It speaks of first century Christians in Judea fleeing the judgment that was to come down on Jerusalem.

There is nothing in the Olivet Discourse that speaks of any "second coming." On the contrary, it speaks only of the "coming" of the son of man which the disciples connected with the destruction of the Temple because they understood the connection.

Jesus speaks of a event/sign connected with the holy place- its desecration by an abomination prophesied by Daniel. What 'holy place' is being spoken of here by Jesus? Was the 'holy place' that was to be desecrated the same 'Temple' as the one predicted to be destroyed in Luke? There are a number of contrasts within this text that indicate that Jesus was talking about two different things.

There is nothing that indicates he was talking about two different things. The unity of the three versions totally excludes any such speculation.

You have not touched the TWO TON ELEPHANT that is sitting in the middle of this discussion. The unity of the three versions is incontrovertible. If you deny it, you deny the coherence of Scripture. If you were correct, nothing in the Bible could be known with any certainty.

The text Jesus cited concerning the Temple's desecration in Daniel 9:27 predicts that the one who desecrates this Temple will himself be destroyed. By contrast, those who destroyed the Temple in A.D.70, the Romans were not destroyed but returned to Rome in triumph carrying vessels from the destroyed Temple.

So the Bible is wrong on this point, or needs to be reinterpreted. In no case would this point justify shredding the text to make room for your Futurist eschatology. Resolution of this point under the Preterist interpretation wouldn't require a tenth of the hermeneutical gymnastics required to support your eschatology. That's the difference between the two positions. Preterism requires a lot less speculation and invention.

The prophecy in Dan. 9:27 and 12:11-12 is said to be about Daniel's people. Was Daniel an apostate or a saint? He was a saint. The vision told to Daniel is about God's holy people (not apostates) in whom we were grafted in, in which we then become included in the vision (Dan. 10:14). The NC was brought in through Christ after the 69 weeks (Dan. 9:26), where 40 years later the city and sanctuary would be destroyed as we read there. This ends the 'latter days' for apostate Israel. The 'time of the end' comes in a future time for God's holy people (See Dan. 12:1,4,7). The fulfillment of the vision comes at the time of the end (12:9) when the 'power of the holy people (not apostate Jews) have been accomplished' (12:7).

That point is absurd. Daniel's use of the phrase "holy people" was understood by everyone to refer to the Jews whether apostate or not. Your use of this point is making you look desperate, especially since you have written nothing that contradicts my primary point of the UNITY of the Olivet Discourse.

In Daniel's 'the holy place,' we see it is to "anoint," (Dan. 9:24) not destroy the sanctuary as seen in Dan. 9:26, showing again that the 70 sevens cannot have been fulfilled in 70 A.D., because the Jerusalem sanctuary was destroyed by the Romans; 'this' sanctuary in Dan. 9:24 is to be "anointed."

The literal translation in Dan. 9:24 is the Holy of holies. This expression appears forty-six times in the Old Testament, and it is never used of the Messiah (to anoint), it is never used of a "person." The expression always refers to the temple, the Holy of holies, or furniture or articles used in temple worship. The Holy of holies is mentioned in Ezek. 41:4 and Ezek. 43:12, in Ezekiel's vision of the temple measuring.

Twospirits

So again, the Bible could be wrong on this point, or it needs to be reinterpreted. Take your pick. But you can't build your Futurist eschatology on such a shaky foundation. It simply will not stand because it contradicts the main and the plain things that any reader can see and understand. You have not touched any aspect of the argument I have presented. I take that as yet another confirmation that you cannot refute it.

Great chatting!

Richard

[Twospirits]

Ram wrote,

It is obvious that Christ was talking about 70 AD because the entire discourse in all three versions began with his prediction of the destruction of the Temple which happened in 70 AD.
You are not dealing with the facts I have presented. Exactly the same words are found in exactly the same order in all three accounts:

And when ye shall see ... desolation ... Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains ... But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days!

I did deal with what you presented. I said though the warnings are similar in all three accounts, they certainly also apply to events beyond 70 A.D. as in A.D. 132, 639, 1099, 1187, etc. as well. So this prophetic event certainly can occur post 70 A.D., that is more than once in history, so this event by itself does not stand. It can be a 1st century fulfillment as well as a future fulfillment for the prophecy not only concerns the temple but also 'the coming of Christ and the end of the age.'

You say that these same words refer to a future event in Matthew and Mark, and a past event in Luke. If you were correct, it would mean that the Bible is deliberately deceptive and utterly incoherent and indeceipherable. Anyone reading three parallel accounts that use the same words would understand that they are speaking of the same events.

There is no way to split up the unified synoptic discourse without doing great violence to Scripure and ripping it into shreds. If the three versions are not unified, the entire Bible is reduced to meaningless gibberish. Nothing could be confirmed with any certainty at all.

The language of prophecy is always given in a vialed manner but this is not deception but a war against good and evil, and God's way that his will be done. And as I said, the words are similar in the 3 accounts because they are events that would occur later in history beyond 70 A.D.
The many and clear contradictions in the Discourse shown in my commentary Discourse 1 pdf confirmed by scripture shows it to be a prophecy that spans the entire gospel/salvation age leading to the coming of Christ and the gathering (redemption) of the elect from the 4 winds of heaven and earth. That the Discourse has the dreaded 'time-gap' (gospel age) that many reject here and in Daniel 9, the final seven. But that's to be expected with prophecy, therefore the need for much study of every word.

The saints (Christians) in Jerusalem were delivered from the apostate rule of the Jews who were imprisoning, torturing, and killing them, exactly as stated in the Bible.
Mark 13:9 But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.
This cannot be future because there will never again be a time when the Jews are dragging Christians into synagogues to be beaten.

Yes, and I said that the 1st century fulfillment events are given beginning in Mt. 24:4-14a; Mark 13:5-13b; Luke 21:8-24a.

Your assertion does not follow. The phrase "no flesh" obviously refers to those living in Judea. That is established by context.

There is nothing in the Olivet Discourse that talks about the entire planet earth. It speaks of first century Christians in Judea fleeing the judgment that was to come down on Jerusalem.

There is nothing in the Olivet Discourse that speaks of any "second coming." On the contrary, it speaks only of the "coming" of the son of man which the disciples connected with the destruction of the Temple because they understood the connection.

Nothing?? The Discourse speaks of the 'elect' in Matthew 24:22 and Mark 13:20 the same passage that speaks of 'no flesh' being saved, but for the elect's sake, their survival, the days will be shortened. At Christ's coming it is this very 'elect' that Jesus sends his angels to gather 'from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven' (Mark 13:27; Mt. 24:31). The passage indicates a earthly gathering from the 4 directions of the whole inhabited earth, and not contained to the environs of Judea.

There is nothing that indicates he was talking about two different things. The unity of the three versions totally excludes any such speculation.

You have not touched the TWO TON ELEPHANT that is sitting in the middle of this discussion. The unity of the three versions is incontrovertible. If you deny it, you deny the coherence of Scripture. If you were correct, nothing in the Bible could be known with any certainty.

But the Discourse shows he IS talking about two different things, and it is not speculation. Mt. 24:15 and Mark 13:14 speaks of an abomination standing in the holy place, which Daniel makes clear speaks of the sanctuary. Whereas Luke 21:20 speaks of Jerusalem being compassed by armies. Huge difference here!

The Bible is telling us with certainty by these very contradictions, they are showing that the Discourse is not a unity but speaks of something else, something that we have been missing, something you reject, the dreaded time-gap.

So the Bible is wrong on this point, or needs to be reinterpreted. In no case would this point justify shredding the text to make room for your Futurist eschatology. Resolution of this point under the Preterist interpretation wouldn't require a tenth of the hermeneutical gymnastics required to support your eschatology. That's the difference between the two positions. Preterism requires a lot less speculation and invention.

No, the Bible is not wrong on this point, it is you that rejects the truth of the text that contradicts your belief system, ie. preterism.

That point is absurd. Daniel's use of the phrase "holy people" was understood by everyone to refer to the Jews whether apostate or not. Your use of this point is making you look desperate, especially since you have written nothing that contradicts my primary point of the UNITY of the Olivet Discourse.

It doesn't matter what was understood, what matters is the NT would have to be taken into account for the prophecy's fulfillment of Dan. 9:24-26 brought in Christ, and the NC in 30 A.D. and the fall of the temple in 70 A.D. The prophecy of Dan. 9:27 and Dan. 12:7,11,12 speak of God's 'holy people.' Since when does God call apostates and the ungodly 'holy people' in scripture? That comes from a wrong conclusion of interpreting scripture.

I have given my points concerning your view of the unity of the Discourse, whether you accept or reject it is up to you.

Originally Posted by Twospirits
In Daniel's 'the holy place,' we see it is to "anoint," (Dan. 9:24) not destroy the sanctuary as seen in Dan. 9:26, showing again that the 70 sevens cannot have been fulfilled in 70 A.D., because the Jerusalem sanctuary was destroyed by the Romans; 'this' sanctuary in Dan. 9:24 is to be "anointed."

The literal translation in Dan. 9:24 is the Holy of holies. This expression appears forty-six times in the Old Testament, and it is never used of the Messiah (to anoint), it is never used of a "person." The expression always refers to the temple, the Holy of holies, or furniture or articles used in temple worship. The Holy of holies is mentioned in Ezek. 41:4 and Ezek. 43:12, in Ezekiel's vision of the temple measuring.

Ram replied,

So again, the Bible could be wrong on this point, or it needs to be reinterpreted. Take your pick. But you can't build your Futurist eschatology on such a shaky foundation. It simply will not stand because it contradicts the main and the plain things that any reader can see and understand. You have not touched any aspect of the argument I have presented. I take that as yet another confirmation that you cannot refute it.

This is the second time you say this about things in the Discourse, will you say the same about this below? most probably so.

You say that Dan. 9:24-27 and Dan.12:7,11,12 'God's holy people' are speaking about the apostate Jews of 1st century Jerusalem. And you hold that Mt. 24:15 and Mark 13:14 the 'abomination of desolation' is to be the prophecy of Luke 21:20, the Roman armies encompassing Jerusalem. But this can't be for several reasons.

The Romans (the abomination) didn't stand in 'the holy place' (Mt. 24:15) the temple until the 'end' of the tribulation. Which would be to late for it to be a sign for the saints to flee Judea.

If the Roman armies (or the zealots) are the abomination that causes desolation then this contradicts Dan. 9:27 and Dan.12:7,11,12. For Dan. 12:11 says, 'And from the time (that) the daily (sacrifice) shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, (there shall be) a thousand two hundred and ninety days.'

This passage tells us that the daily in the temple is taken away 3 ½ years+ 'prior' to the time that the abomination that causes desolation is set up. For those who hold the preterist view that the events speak of armies surrounding Jerusalem (or the zealots in the temple) this means that the sacrifices would have to have ceased sometime in Jan.-Feb. of 66 A.D. to the time of the abomination being set up ie. the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem. Yet Josephus records that the sacrifices continued even after the Roman armies surrounded Jerusalem up to the final months of that siege. The very opposite of the preterist view.

CONTAINING THE INTERVAL OF NEAR SIX MONTHS.
FROM THE COMING OF TITUS TO BESIEGE JERUSALEM, TO THE GREAT EXTREMITY TO WHICH THE JEWS WERE REDUCED.

Bk. 5, chap 1:2,3

Each of these were followed by a great many of the zealots; these seized upon the inner court of the temple (1) and laid their arms upon the holy gates, and over the holy fronts of that court. And because they had plenty of provisions, they were of good courage, for there was a great abundance of what was consecrated to sacred uses, and they scrupled not the making use of them;-----


For notwithstanding these men were mad with all sorts of impiety, yet did they still admit those that desired to offer their sacrifices, although they took care to search the people of their own country beforehand, and both suspected and watched them; while they were not so much afraid of strangers, who, although they had gotten leave of them, how cruel soever they were, to come into that court, were yet often destroyed by this sedition; for those darts that were thrown by the engines came with that force, that they went over all the buildings, and reached as far as the altar, and the temple itself, and fell upon the priests, and those (2) that were about the sacred offices; insomuch that many persons who came thither with great zeal from the ends of the earth, to offer sacrifices at this celebrated place, which was esteemed holy by all mankind, fell down before their own sacrifices themselves, and sprinkled that altar which was venerable among all men, ----


So we see that at this time, 6 months or so prior to the fall of the temple and city they were still continuing with the Mosaic sacrificial system. Therefore it is impossible for the Romans or others, the Zealots, to be the fulfillment of Mt. 24:15f, Mark 13:14f, and Dan. 9:27; Dan.12:11-12.

But of course you will respond and say:

'But you can't build your Futurist eschatology on such a shaky foundation. It simply will not stand because it contradicts the main and the plain things that any reader can see and understand. You have not touched any aspect of the argument I have presented. I take that as yet another confirmation that you cannot refute it.'

God bless---Twospirits

[Richard Amiel McGough]

It is obvious that Christ was talking about 70 AD because the entire discourse in all three versions began with his prediction of the destruction of the Temple which happened in 70 AD.
You are not dealing with the facts I have presented. Exactly the same words are found in exactly the same order in all three accounts:

And when ye shall see ... desolation ... Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains ... But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days!

I did deal with what you presented. I said though the warnings are similar in all three accounts, they certainly also apply to events beyond 70 A.D. as in A.D. 132, 639, 1099, 1187, etc. as well. So this prophetic event certainly can occur post 70 A.D., that is more than once in history, so this event by itself does not stand. It can be a 1st century fulfillment as well as a future fulfillment for the prophecy not only concerns the temple but also 'the coming of Christ and the end of the age.'

No, you did not deal with the argument I presented. You did not explain why the same words could be "applied" both future and past. It is impossible to suggest that the Olivet Discourse could apply to events beyond 70 AD because it is centered on the destruction of the Temple, which was fulfilled in 70 AD. There was no temple in A.D. 132, 639, 1099, 1187, or at any time since then. The prophecy cannot apply to those dates.

This is confirmed by the UNITY of the three synoptic versions of the discourse. They say the same thing in the beginning, most of the middle, and at the end. The variations are no where near sufficient to justify your assertion that two are past and one is future.

And as I said, the words are similar in the 3 accounts because they are events that would occur later in history beyond 70 A.D.

That doesn't make any sense. You say that the same set of words is past in Matthew and Mark and future in Luke. If that is the case, why would Christ use the same sets of words? It makes it look like he's talking about the same events.

The many and clear contradictions in the Discourse shown in my commentary Discourse 1 pdf confirmed by scripture shows it to be a prophecy that spans the entire gospel/salvation age leading to the coming of Christ and the gathering (redemption) of the elect from the 4 winds of heaven and earth. That the Discourse has the dreaded 'time-gap' (gospel age) that many reject here and in Daniel 9, the final seven. But that's to be expected with prophecy, therefore the need for much study of every word.

The many and clear contradictions? Most people take that as an indication of error, not as a foundation for an otherwise unsupported eschatology.

The 2000+ year imaginary gap isn't rejected because it is not in the text and there is nothing in the text to suggest it exists.

The saints (Christians) in Jerusalem were delivered from the apostate rule of the Jews who were imprisoning, torturing, and killing them, exactly as stated in the Bible.
Mark 13:9 But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.
This cannot be future because there will never again be a time when the Jews are dragging Christians into synagogues to be beaten.

Yes, and I said that the 1st century fulfillment events are given beginning in Mt. 24:4-14a; Mark 13:5-13b; Luke 21:8-24a.

It appears you have forgotten the unity of the Bible. The persecution of the saints is an integral part of both the past and future prophecies.

Matthew 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. 23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

This is how we know that your Futurist interpretation is wrong. There will never again be a time when Christians are dragged into synagogues to be beaten. It also shows that Christ was talking about the land of Israel and environs, not the whole globe of planet earth.

Nothing?? The Discourse speaks of the 'elect' in Matthew 24:22 and Mark 13:20 the same passage that speaks of 'no flesh' being saved, but for the elect's sake, their survival, the days will be shortened. At Christ's coming it is this very 'elect' that Jesus sends his angels to gather 'from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven' (Mark 13:27; Mt. 24:31). The passage indicates a earthly gathering from the 4 directions of the whole inhabited earth, and not contained to the environs of Judea.

That's right - nothing. The "uttermost part" of the land is in the context of the land of Israel. The "elect" refers to the elect alive at that time, and they were all in Judea.

But the Discourse shows he IS talking about two different things, and it is not speculation. Mt. 24:15 and Mark 13:14 speaks of an abomination standing in the holy place, which Daniel makes clear speaks of the sanctuary. Whereas Luke 21:20 speaks of Jerusalem being compassed by armies. Huge difference here!

The language shows that the three synoptics were talking about the same event. They used the same words with some slight variations. You cannot justify destroying the unity of the discourse by appealing to unknowns like the meaning of the Abomination of Desolation. The meaning of that term is debated because the Bible does not tell us what it is. I know you think you have "figured it out" but I also know that your interpretation was designed to conform to your preconceived Futurism.

The Bible is telling us with certainty by these very contradictions, they are showing that the Discourse is not a unity but speaks of something else, something that we have been missing, something you reject, the dreaded time-gap.

So you want me to believe the Omniscient God speaks through contradictions knowing this would lead to ten thousand different interpretations and yours just happens to be the right one?

So the Bible is wrong on this point, or needs to be reinterpreted. In no case would this point justify shredding the text to make room for your Futurist eschatology. Resolution of this point under the Preterist interpretation wouldn't require a tenth of the hermeneutical gymnastics required to support your eschatology. That's the difference between the two positions. Preterism requires a lot less speculation and invention.

No, the Bible is not wrong on this point, it is you that rejects the truth of the text that contradicts your belief system, ie. preterism.

This has nothing to do with my "belief system" about eschatology. This should be obvious since I DON'T BELIEVE THE BIBLE! I am merely explaining what seems to be the eschatological that best fits the data of the Bible.

My point stands whether I am a believer or not. Preterism is hands down superior to Futurism because Futurism shreds the Bible into a meaningless mass of confetti that can be molded into any shape you like. Just look at your argument - you assert that the contradictions between the three versions trumps their unity! You are trying to use the minor differences and ambiguities to invent doctrines. If you thought the unity of the discourse supported your Futurism, you would argue just as strongly for it as you are for its opposite. That's the difference between you and I. My mind is free to accept whatever is written because I have no dog in this fight. It doesn't matter to me if Preterism or Futurism is the "best fit" for the Biblical data, because I don't believe the Bible is authoritative. This frees my mind so I can see reality, whereas you must protect your doctrine.

That point is absurd. Daniel's use of the phrase "holy people" was understood by everyone to refer to the Jews whether apostate or not. Your use of this point is making you look desperate, especially since you have written nothing that contradicts my primary point of the UNITY of the Olivet Discourse.

It doesn't matter what was understood, what matters is the NT would have to be taken into account for the prophecy's fulfillment of Dan. 9:24-26 brought in Christ, and the NC in 30 A.D. and the fall of the temple in 70 A.D. The prophecy of Dan. 9:27 and Dan. 12:7,11,12 speak of God's 'holy people.' Since when does God call apostates and the ungodly 'holy people' in scripture? That comes from a wrong conclusion of interpreting scripture.

I have given my points concerning your view of the unity of the Discourse, whether you accept or reject it is up to you.

It most certainly matters "what was understood."

You are trying to hang everything on minor points that stretch words way beyond their intended meaning. In a post long ago I showed that your logic was flawed because Jerusalem was referred to as the "Holy City" after the crucifixion. You then had to make up an excuse for why your logic didn't apply to that verse. And on it goes. Any evidence that contradicts your preferred doctrines is simply "explained away" and you don't seem to have any objective standards by which to discern between true and false. It's all just words, words, words. A mountain of opinions with nothing to ground them in reality.

You say that Dan. 9:24-27 and Dan.12:7,11,12 'God's holy people' are speaking about the apostate Jews of 1st century Jerusalem. And you hold that Mt. 24:15 and Mark 13:14 the 'abomination of desolation' is to be the prophecy of Luke 21:20, the Roman armies encompassing Jerusalem. But this can't be for several reasons.

We have never discussed the various Preterist interpretations of the AoD, and I'm not about to begin now. You see, I always try to establish the truth on the main and plain things that are supported by many mutually confirming verses. You, on the other hand, seek minor variations in parallel passages by which to create any inverted pyramid of speculation atop a contradiction! Your methodology is fundamentally flawed, in my estimation.

All the best,

Richard

[Twospirits]

Ram wrote,

No, you did not deal with the argument I presented. You did not explain why the same words could be "applied" both future and past. It is impossible to suggest that the Olivet Discourse could apply to events beyond 70 AD because it is centered on the destruction of the Temple, which was fulfilled in 70 AD. There was no temple in A.D. 132, 639, 1099, 1187, or at any time since then. The prophecy cannot apply to those dates.

This is confirmed by the UNITY of the three synoptic versions of the discourse. They say the same thing in the beginning, most of the middle, and at the end. The variations are no where near sufficient to justify your assertion that two are past and one is future.
That doesn't make any sense. You say that the same set of words is past in Matthew and Mark and future in Luke. If that is the case, why would Christ use the same sets of words? It makes it look like he's talking about the same events.

It can apply to post 70 A.D. because the destruction prophesied did not strictly apply to the temple alone though it would fall, but to all the buildings of the city Jerusalem; he was speaking specifically of the 'city of Jerusalem' and its people within that would be destroyed. Luke states this surrounding 'of Jerusalem' and "its desolation," thus the warning to flee Judea. Whereas Matthew and Mark do not, they say an abomination would be standing in 'the holy place' (in Mark, 'where it ought not'), then the warning given for those living there to flee the region of Judea when that time occurs.

You are mistaken on what you noted I said as past and future, I said Luke 21:20-24 fulfilled the temple/city's destruction, with Matthew 24: 15f and Mark 13:14f being the future time these events happen where those who live in Judea are told to flee for there shall be 'great tribulation.' It does not specify what that tribulation shall be, neither does it state to flee 'Jerusalem' because of 'surrounding armies' as in Luke, only that they are to flee the territory of Judea. Only Luke mentions the city of Jerusalem being surrounded by armies.

The many and clear contradictions? Most people take that as an indication of error, not as a foundation for an otherwise unsupported eschatology.

The 2000+ year imaginary gap isn't rejected because it is not in the text and there is nothing in the text to suggest it exists.

Other prophetic scriptures relating to the prophecy express that gap (ex. Mt. 28: 19-20; Acts 2:17-21) so doesn't Mt. 24:14, and the break from Luke 21:24f. All is explained in my commentary of the Discourse. It is not imaginary but quite prophetic and scriptural.

It appears you have forgotten the unity of the Bible. The persecution of the saints is an integral part of both the past and future prophecies.

Matthew 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. 23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

This is how we know that your Futurist interpretation is wrong. There will never again be a time when Christians are dragged into synagogues to be beaten. It also shows that Christ was talking about the land of Israel and environs, not the whole globe of planet earth.

So you're saying saints from the 1st century on can only be persecuted in synagogues, Israel and its environs and no where else? Persecution whether in Israel or elsewhere has, does, and will continue until Christ comes, persecution is an on-going prophecy.

That's right - nothing. The "uttermost part" of the land is in the context of the land of Israel. The "elect" refers to the elect alive at that time, and they were all in Judea.

What? The elect were all in Judea only? The whole NT shows you to be wrong, they were scattered throughout the inhabited world of the Roman empire! The context tells us at Christ's coming the elect are gathered throughout the whole inhabited earth!

The language shows that the three synoptics were talking about the same event. They used the same words with some slight variations. You cannot justify destroying the unity of the discourse by appealing to unknowns like the meaning of the Abomination of Desolation. The meaning of that term is debated because the Bible does not tell us what it is. I know you think you have "figured it out" but I also know that your interpretation was designed to conform to your preconceived Futurism.

A false interpretation would contradict and not agree with scripture. The commentary explains this with scripture of what an 'abomination' is and why it 'causes desolation,' to much to go into here, but those interested need only read it for themselves. http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/show...5481#post35481

So you want me to believe the Omniscient God speaks through contradictions knowing this would lead to ten thousand different interpretations and yours just happens to be the right one?

Let me rephrase, by 'the wording of the context' in the Discourse is how we know they are speaking of different things. Why I said: Mt. 24:15 and Mark 13:14 speaks of an abomination standing in the holy place, which Daniel makes clear is speaking of the sanctuary. Whereas Luke 21:20 makes it clear it speaks of Jerusalem being compassed by armies. Huge difference here!

You are trying to use the minor differences and ambiguities to invent doctrines.

You are trying to hang everything on minor points that stretch words way beyond their intended meaning.

I don't call the prophecy of Mt. 24:15 that relates to the prophecy of Dan. 9:27; Dan. 12: 7,11,12 and Revelation 'minor differences and ambiguities' it is the great bulk of the prophecy!!

You are trying to hang everything on minor points that stretch words way beyond their intended meaning. In a post long ago I showed that your logic was flawed because Jerusalem was referred to as the "Holy City" after the crucifixion. You then had to make up an excuse for why your logic didn't apply to that verse

What you see and call 'minor points' are in reality major hermeneutical points in studying eschatology and scripture for its truth. I didn't 'make up an excuse' but is a grammatical fact when writing historical accounts. This is what the writer Matthew (He wrote his gospel in the 50's A.D.) of scripture was doing, giving an historical account of what was known as being 'the holy city.' But by their rejection of Christ, Jesus cursed it to desolation and no longer 'holy' in God's eyes, history is the proof of this truth. Matthew was simply giving an accurate historical account given in those passages. But you seem to believe otherwise and call my logic flawed.

We have never discussed the various Preterist interpretations of the AoD, and I'm not about to begin now. You see, I always try to establish the truth on the main and plain things that are supported by many mutually confirming verses. You, on the other hand, seek minor variations in parallel passages by which to create any inverted pyramid of speculation atop a contradiction! Your methodology is fundamentally flawed, in my estimation.

Suit yourself its fine with me, but if the readers are interested there was some discussion on this issue here: http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/show...5481#post35481 before it got way off-topic.

What you call 'slight variations' and 'minor differences' such as 'the abomination of desolation' vs. 'Jerusalem surrounded by armies'= 'same' in preterist hermeneutics, I call a gross error of those hermeneutics when approaching the study of eschatology and scripture to find the truth of what the texts are communicating. The difference of those two examples given are like night and day!

God bless---Twospirits

[Richard Amiel McGough]

It can apply to post 70 A.D. because the destruction prophesied did not strictly apply to the temple alone though it would fall, but to all the buildings of the city Jerusalem; he was speaking specifically of the 'city of Jerusalem' and its people within that would be destroyed. Luke states this surrounding 'of Jerusalem' and "its desolation," thus the warning to flee Judea. Whereas Matthew and Mark do not, they say an abomination would be standing in 'the holy place' (in Mark, 'where it ought not'), then the warning given for those living there to flee the region of Judea when that time occurs.

That's not true because all three versions of the discourse begin with a prediction of the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. They say the same thing in the beginning, most of the middle, and at the end. They all contain a warning to flee Judea - the same words cannot apply to the past destruction of the Temple and some future event merely because they used different words to describe the "desolation" that happened in 70 AD.

You are mistaken on what you noted I said as past and future, I said Luke 21:20-24 fulfilled the temple/city's destruction, with Matthew 24: 15f and Mark 13:14f being the future time these events happen where those who live in Judea are told to flee for there shall be 'great tribulation.' It does not specify what that tribulation shall be, neither does it state to flee 'Jerusalem' because of 'surrounding armies' as in Luke, only that they are to flee the territory of Judea. Only Luke mentions the city of Jerusalem being surrounded by armies.

How am I mistaken? You explicitly stated the following:

The 1st century fulfillment events are given beginning in Mt. 24:4-14a; Mark 13:5-13b; Luke 21:8-24a.

The events that concern Christ's coming and end of the age are the events beginning from Mt. 24:14b F; Mark 13:13b F and Luke 21:24 b F.

This means that you asserted the following:

MATTHEW 24:15-20 [FUTURE]
When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand) 16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: 17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: 18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. 19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

MARK 13:14-18 [FUTURE]
But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains: 15 And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of his house: 16 And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to take up his garment. 17 But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 18 And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter.

LUKE 21:20-23 [PAST]
And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.

And this means that you need to justify your assertion that the same words are used to describe different events separated by thousands of years:

And when ye shall see ... desolation ... Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains ... But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days!

You need to deal with this fact. If Christ used the same words in parallel passages there is no way to justify your assertion that they refer to events separated by thousands of years.

Other prophetic scriptures relating to the prophecy express that gap (ex. Mt. 28: 19-20; Acts 2:17-21) so doesn't Mt. 24:14, and the break from Luke 21:24f. All is explained in my commentary of the Discourse. It is not imaginary but quite prophetic and scriptural.

None of those Scriptures say anything about any "gap." There is no Scripture that says the Gospel age would come to an end. The "age" described is the "age of sacrifice" that ended with the final sacrifice of Christ and is confirmed by the destruction of the Temple. That's why Hebrews says that Christ was sacrificed at the "end of the age."

This is how we know that your Futurist interpretation is wrong. There will never again be a time when Christians are dragged into synagogues to be beaten. It also shows that Christ was talking about the land of Israel and environs, not the whole globe of planet earth.

So you're saying saints from the 1st century on can only be persecuted in synagogues, Israel and its environs and no where else? Persecution whether in Israel or elsewhere has, does, and will continue until Christ comes, persecution is an on-going prophecy.

No, I said nothing like that. The continuation of persecution has nothing to do with the prophecy, because the prophecy was not a prediction of on-going persecution. It was specifically a prophecy of the persecution that the first century Christians would suffer under the Jews. It was fulfilled. That's it.

The "uttermost part" of the land is in the context of the land of Israel. The "elect" refers to the elect alive at that time, and they were all in Judea.

What? The elect were all in Judea only? The whole NT shows you to be wrong, they were scattered throughout the inhabited world of the Roman empire! The context tells us at Christ's coming the elect are gathered throughout the whole inhabited earth!

The "elect" in the Olivet Discourse refers to the elect that were alive at that time.

The "whole inhabited earth" is a false definition of the words used in the Bible. The correct definition is "whole inhabited land" in the environs of Israel. This has been proved a million times. Paul said that the Gospel had gone out to the "whole inhabited land" in the first century. Case closed.

The language shows that the three synoptics were talking about the same event. They used the same words with some slight variations. You cannot justify destroying the unity of the discourse by appealing to unknowns like the meaning of the Abomination of Desolation. The meaning of that term is debated because the Bible does not tell us what it is. I know you think you have "figured it out" but I also know that your interpretation was designed to conform to your preconceived Futurism.

A false interpretation would contradict and not agree with scripture. The commentary explains this with scripture of what an 'abomination' is and why it 'causes desolation,' to much to go into here, but those interested need only read it for themselves. http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/show...5481#post35481

The problem is that the meaning of the AoD is debated because the Bible does not tell us what it is. It's fine if you think you figured it out, but you can't use that as proof of Futurism because your interpretation was designed to fit your Futurism so it would be a circular argument.

Please think deeply about this - it is the key to all our disputes. There are many things in the Bible that are ambiguous. Our interpretations of them depend upon whether or not we begin by assuming Futurism or Preterism. Therefore, these ambiguous passages cannot be used as proof of either Futurism or Preterism. SO OUR FIRST JOB is to find the main, plain, clear and unambiguous passages that are supported by many mutually confirming verses. Then, when we have the foundation established, we can try to resolve the ambiguous passages. This is why I say your methodology is fundamentally flawed. You begin with ambiguities and then assert that the same words refer to different events.

Let me rephrase, by 'the wording of the context' in the Discourse is how we know they are speaking of different things. Why I said: Mt. 24:15 and Mark 13:14 speaks of an abomination standing in the holy place, which Daniel makes clear is speaking of the sanctuary. Whereas Luke 21:20 makes it clear it speaks of Jerusalem being compassed by armies. Huge difference here!

The four accounts of the crucifixion have many more differences than the three accounts of the Olivet Discourse. Therefore, if we followed you logic we must conclude that they speak of four different events, and that Christ was crucified four times. This is why I say that your methodology is fundamentally flawed. Think about it! No serious scholar is going to be able to believe your assertions because they are based on a fundamentally fallacious logic. Doesn't this matter to you?

You are trying to use the minor differences and ambiguities to invent doctrines.

You are trying to hang everything on minor points that stretch words way beyond their intended meaning.

I don't call the prophecy of Mt. 24:15 that relates to the prophecy of Dan. 9:27; Dan. 12: 7,11,12 and Revelation 'minor differences and ambiguities' it is the great bulk of the prophecy!!

Your perception of the prophecy is entirely skewed. The specific details of the "desolation" are not the "bulk of the prophecy." On the contrary, the three versions agree completely on the "bulk of the prophecy" - they are the same in the beginning, most of the middle, and the end:

• SYNOPTIC Christ predicts Destruction of the First Century Temple
• SYNOPTIC The Disciples ask, When will these things be?
• SYNOPTIC Jesus answered, Take heed that no man deceive you!
• SYNOPTIC Wars and Rumours of Wars ~ The Six Seals of Revelation
• SYNOPTIC Persecution for Jesus' Name
• SYNOPTIC The Days of Vengeance
• LUKE ONLY Christ Predicts the Dispora
• MATT/MARK The Great Tribulation
• MATT/MARK False Christs
• MATT ONLY As Lightning shineth from East to West
• SYNOPTIC The Coming of the Son of Man
• SYNOPTIC The Answer to the Question of "When?" ~ This Generation!

What you think is the "bulk of the prophecy" is contained only in the minor variations. All three agree on the "bulk."

It's one thing for you to look for support for your Futurist doctrines. It's quite another to be blind to the unity of the Olivet Discourse. No serious scholar could believe you if they wanted to because you logic is fundamentally flawed. If we applied your logic to any other set of parallel passages in the Bible, it would imply an entirely irrational multiplication of events like multiple births and deaths of Christ.

You are trying to hang everything on minor points that stretch words way beyond their intended meaning. In a post long ago I showed that your logic was flawed because Jerusalem was referred to as the "Holy City" after the crucifixion. You then had to make up an excuse for why your logic didn't apply to that verse

What you see and call 'minor points' are in reality major hermeneutical points in studying eschatology and scripture for its truth. I didn't 'make up an excuse' but is a grammatical fact when writing historical accounts. This is what the writer Matthew (He wrote his gospel in the 50's A.D.) of scripture was doing, giving an historical account of what was known as being 'the holy city.' But by their rejection of Christ, Jesus cursed it to desolation and no longer 'holy' in God's eyes, history is the proof of this truth. Matthew was simply giving an accurate historical account given in those passages. But you seem to believe otherwise and call my logic flawed.

The unity of the parallel passages is the true "major hermeneutical point" that you are rejecting in favor of highly disputable hair-splitting arguments about minor variations in words. If we followed your methodology elsewhere it would destroy the unity of the whole Bible.

As for your explanation about the holy city - the same can be said for the "holy people." They were the "holy people" when Daniel made the prophecy. This is just another example how you try to overcome the obvious by nit-picking words like a lawyer. You will never arrive at truth that way.

We have never discussed the various Preterist interpretations of the AoD, and I'm not about to begin now. You see, I always try to establish the truth on the main and plain things that are supported by many mutually confirming verses. You, on the other hand, seek minor variations in parallel passages by which to create any inverted pyramid of speculation atop a contradiction! Your methodology is fundamentally flawed, in my estimation.

Suit yourself its fine with me, but if the readers are interested there was some discussion on this issue here: http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/show...5481#post35481 before it got way off-topic.

What you call 'slight variations' and 'minor differences' such as 'the abomination of desolation' vs. 'Jerusalem surrounded by armies'= 'same' in preterist hermeneutics, I call a gross error of those hermeneutics when approaching the study of eschatology and scripture to find the truth of what the texts are communicating. The difference of those two examples given are like night and day!

Not only is it a "minor variation" - it is also an AMBIGUOUS variation because there is no broad agreement about its meaning. Your attempt to build your hermeneutical house upon such a shaky foundation is doomed to failure.

All the best,

Richard

[Twospirits]

Ram wrote,

Your perception of the prophecy is entirely skewed. The specific details of the "desolation" are not the "bulk of the prophecy." On the contrary, the three versions agree completely on the "bulk of the prophecy"-

What you think is the "bulk of the prophecy" is contained only in the minor variations. All three agree on the "bulk."

Okay fine, let me get straight to the point rather than answer your entire post. You say all three, Matthew, Mark and Luke agree on the 'bulk of the prophecy.' So I take it you understand when I say the 'bulk of the prophecy' that I speak not only of the Discourse but also all that which relates to it, which is Dan.9:24-27; Dan. 12: 7,11,12, the book of Revelation and other related prophetic passages in the NT.; that which you call 'minor variations.'

Also you hold (as all partial and full preterists also agree) that Dan. 9:24-27 and Dan.12:7,11,12 'God's holy people' are speaking about the apostate Jews of 1st century Jerusalem. And you hold that Mt. 24:15 and Mark 13:14 the 'abomination of desolation' is the prophecy of Luke 21:20, the Roman armies encompassing Jerusalem. You also hold that the book of Revelation is the fulfillment of the prophecies seen in Daniel and the Discourse. Then why do the many prophetic passages in Matthew, Mark, Daniel, Revelation, and other texts relating to the prophecy totally contradict your views of their fulfillment as confirmed by scripture and history? These are the facts (given below) that need to be dealt with and refuted in order for preterism to be 'true' as you claim and rigidly hold on to. Here are a few seen in the Discourse:

1. The Romans (the abomination) didn't stand in 'the holy place' (Mt. 24:15) preterists hold to be the Jewish temple until the 'end' of the tribulation. Which would be to late for it to be a sign for the saints to flee Judea. As Matthew gives this sign as being the 'beginning' of the tribulation in order that they could flee to safety. Therefore the Roman armies cannot be the fulfillment of Matthew 24:15f and Mark 13:14f.

2. The parallel passages to Daniel, Matthew and Mark are Rev. 20:7-9 which speaks of the hordes of Gog and Magog gathered together (Rev. 20:8) which 'surrounded the camp of the saints, and the beloved city.' But the enemies of Gog and Magog were destroyed by God's intervention, and the 'camp of the saints and the beloved city' were 'saved by God.' These events contradicts the events of A.D. 70 which preterists say were fulfilled by the Romans, for the Roman armies were not destroyed by God's intervention, they were victorious, and the Jews and the city was destroyed, not saved. Therefore the Roman armies cannot be the fulfillment of Matthew 24:15f and Mark 13:14f And Rev. 20:7-9.

3. The text Jesus cited in Matthew and Mark concerning the 'holy place's desecration' in Daniel 9:27 predicts that the one who desecrates this 'holy place' (Mt. 24:15) will himself be destroyed. By contrast, those who destroyed the Temple in A.D.70, the Romans were not destroyed but returned to Rome in triumph carrying vessels from the destroyed Temple. Therefore the Roman armies cannot be the fulfillment of Matthew 24:15f and Mark 13:14f and Dan. 9:27.

4. In Daniel's 'the holy place,' we see it is to "anoint," (Dan. 9:24) not destroy the sanctuary as seen in Dan. 9:26, showing again that the 70 sevens cannot have been fulfilled in 70 A.D., because the Jerusalem sanctuary was destroyed by the Romans; 'this' sanctuary in Dan. 9:24 is to be "anointed." Therefore the Roman armies cannot be the fulfillment of Matthew 24:15f and Mark 13:14f and Dan. 9:24,27.

The literal translation in Dan. 9:24 is the Holy of holies. This expression appears forty-six times in the Old Testament, and it is never used of the Messiah (to anoint), it is never used of a "person." The expression always refers to the temple, the Holy of holies, or furniture or articles used in temple worship. The Holy of holies is mentioned in Ezek. 41:4 and Ezek. 43:12, in Ezekiel's vision of the temple measuring.

5. If the Roman armies (or the zealots) are the abomination that causes desolation given in Matthew and Mark then this contradicts Dan. 9:27 and Dan.12:7,11,12. For Dan. 12:11 says, 'And from the time (that) the daily (sacrifice) shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, (there shall be) a thousand two hundred and ninety days.'

This passage tells us that the daily in the 'holy place' is taken away 3 ½ years+ 'prior' to the time that the abomination that causes desolation is set up. For those who hold the preterist view that the events speak of armies surrounding Jerusalem as being the abomination (or the zealots in the 'holy place'), this means that the sacrifices would have to have ceased sometime in Jan.-Feb. of 66 A.D. to the time of the abomination being set up ie. the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem (or the zealots in the 'holy place'). Yet Josephus records that the sacrifices continued even after the Zealots entered the temple and the Roman armies surrounded Jerusalem up to the final months of that siege. (Josephus' War with the Jews; Bk. 5, chap 1:2,3). Therefore the Roman armies nor the Zealots can be the fulfillment of Matthew 24:15f and Mark 13:14f; Dan. 9:24,27;Dan.12:7,11,12.

6. Dan. 12:7, 'And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.'

Note the 'current status' of these people as seen in the eyes of God; they are seen as 'holy' to that very time. This agrees with Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14, where the 'place' the abomination would be standing in is also seen as 'holy.' 'When you see---abomination----stand in the holy place.' It is spoken of in the present tense, that is this would be the 'current status' of this place at the time, it is seen as 'holy' when the prophecy would come to pass, which agrees with Daniel. But due to the 'abomination' scattering the power of the holy people at that time, then and only then would it become desecrated and desolate.

The contradictions seen in the book of Revelation will be given in the following post 2.

God bless---Twospirits