We have asked and received permission to comment upon a debate on the subject "Is the Great Tribulation Past or Future?" held on the Theology Online Forum between Tekton author Dee Dee Warren and a certain Jerry Shugart. Permission was granted with the proviso that we provide a link to the debate, which is presently here. Please note that Dee Dee no longer participates at TOL and may now be found at TheologyWeb. Interested parties may wish to check out the Eschatology Wrestlefest.

Since my agreement is with Dee Dee as a whole, our comments on her side will of course be limited, and we will have much more to say to Jerry, who, though perhaps earnest, in my estimation is of a regrettable class of believer who is committed to the type of thinking that causes those of weaker faith to stumble.

Dee Dee won the "coin toss" and was permitted to lay out a position first:

When I make the statement that the Great Tribulation spoken of in Matthew 24 is over, futurists are inevitably drawn like a magnet to Daniel 9. Now this is understandable since Jesus mentions the phrase "the abomination of desolation" which finds its place in either Daniel 9:27 or Daniel 12:11 or both. However, the futurist then inserts a handy-dandy gap in between the 69th and the 70th week of Daniel's prophecy (which is illegitimate and has blasphemous implications for other reasons) and through somewhat circular reasoning uses this to "prove" that the Great Tribulation is future.

This makes absolutely no sense and does great violence to the text. When Daniel receives this prophecy, Jerusalem and the Temple are in ruins. He is told that the city will be rebuilt (and by implication the Temple will be rebuilt also). Within the same prophecy he is told that Jerusalem and the Temple will be destroyed. Gabriel also exhorts Daniel in verse 25 to know and understand this vision. Is there any chance in a billion years that Daniel knew and understood that it was not the city and Temple that he was just told would be rebuilt that are also spoken about as being destroyed?? Would he have any idea without any textual clue whatsoever that the destruction of THAT city and Temple would be skipped over and omitted… the city and Temple would be rebuilt again (without any mention of this event in the text), and it is THAT future city and Temple that are referenced as being destroyed?? This is simply unbelievable. Only one city and Temple are in view in this prophecy.

However, further to the demise of futurism, Jesus makes it clear what Temple and city are in view beyond any shadow of a doubt in the Olivet Discourse, which futurists believe is speaking of the 70th week of Daniel (preterists don't believe that it has anything to do with the 70th week of Daniel, but does have to do with events spoken of in Daniel 9, such as the abomination of desolation, which happen "outside" of the 70 weeks). In the Olivet Discourse the disciples ask Jesus certain questions, and these were not asked in a vacuum. The questions were prompted as follows (my commentary is in black - God's Word is in red and italics):

First using Mark as a source: Then as He went out of the temple (the Temple that existed back then), one of His disciples said to Him, "Teacher, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!" ( they are asking about the Temple that existed back then) And Jesus answered and said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another, that shall not be thrown down." (referring to the Temple that existed back then!)

Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, (that existed back then) Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked Him privately, "Tell us, when will these things be?…." (it matters not that they asked Him more questions, obviously one of the things that they wanted to know was when the Temple that existed back then would be destroyed)

Next using Luke as a source: Then, as some spoke of the temple, (the Temple that existed back then) how it was adorned with beautiful stones and donations, He said, "These things which you see- (the Temple that was before their very eyes right then) the days will come in which not one stone shall be left upon another that shall not be thrown down." So they asked Him, saying, "Teacher, but when will these things be? (again, part of "these things" MUST include the destruction that He just prophesied that prompted their questions to begin with)

Lastly using Matthew as a source: Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. (the Temple that existed back then) And Jesus said to them, "Do you not see all these things? (the Temple that existed back then) Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here ( notice the word "here" it is referring to those actual stones, the ones that existed then) upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

All these of the Synoptics of the Olivet Discourse contain the very solemn declaration by Jesus, "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place." (Matthew 24:34, Luke 21:32, Mark 13:31)

Now we know when the city and Temple were destroyed. It was in 70AD. If that is "one" of "all these things," then ALL of the rest of that passage, at least up to Matthew 24:33, Luke 21:31, and Mark 13:31 happened in the first century as well. It is inescapable. The destruction the then existing Temple is a completely unique, datable, and nonrepeatable event. If the prophecy was not primarily fulfilled in the first century, it can never be. This also ties in with the "abomination of desolation" and Daniel 9. Jesus in identifying what Temple He was referring to totally destroys any notion that the Temple being referred to in Daniel 9 is any other Temple than the one that existed when Christ gave His Discourse. There is NO way around this. THIS IS WHERE I LAY DOWN THE GAUNTLET. It is an intractable problem for futurism.

We offer no comment at present. Next Jerry laid down his essential case:

When I started studying the prophetic time when the "man of sin" would sit "in the Temple of God,showing himself that he is God",I kept asking myself the same question--"How would it be possible for this anti-christ to deceive the world,especially considering the fact that there are many prophecies that say that an imposter would sit in the Temple of God?"

But after studying the teaching of the church at Rome and of the preterists,I have found the answer--all these events have already come to pass!At least that is what they teach.

No need to worry about the "anti-christ" because he has already come and gone.No need to worry about Satan,because he is at this time bound and has been cast into the bottomless pit.

How convenient for Satan!

But those of us who are guided by the Scriptures know that all this is not true.We know that the "great tribulation" has not yet come to pass.

Dee Dee is unable to distinguish between two different events that involve Jerusalem.However,Scripture does distinguish between an assault on Jerusalem when there will be no relief for the people,and another event when the Lord Jesus will deliver His people.

The Apostles asked the Lord in regard to the destruction of the Temple then standing,"Master,but when shall these things be?"(Lk.21:7).

In answer,the Lord described an assault on Jerusalem where there will be no relief or deliverence:

"And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies,then know that the desolation is near...and they shall fall by the edge of the sword,and shall be led away captive into all nations"(Lk.21:20,24).

And this is exactly what happened in A.D 70.

The apostles also asked the Lord,"And what shall be the sign of Thy coming,and of the end of the age?"

The Lord´s answer to this question involves another assault on Jerusalem,and this assault is tied to the prophecies contained in the book of Daniel (Mt.24:15).

Here we can see that these events concern a "king" who "shall exalt himself,and magnify himself above every god...and he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain;yet he shall come to his end,and none shall help him"(Dan.11:36,45).

The verses that immediately follow reveal that at this assault on Jerusalem the people of Daniel,the children of Israel,will "be delivered":

"And at that time shall Michael stand up,the great prince that standeth for the children of thy people,and there shall be a time of trouble,SUCH AS NEVER WAS SINCE THERE WAS A NATION EVEN TO THAT SAME TIME; and at that time THY PEOPLE SHALL BE DELIVERED,every one that shall be found written in the book"(Dan.12:1).

So here we see a completely different assault on Jerusalem,and this attack is described in the same terms as the "great tribulation"--"such as never was since there was a nation even to the same time"(compare with Mt.24:21)--but in this instance the people of God will be delivered.

And since we know that the time has not yet arrived when the people of God in Jerusalem will be delivered,we also know that the event described as the "great tribulation" has not come to pass either.

Next,I will deal with Dee Dee´s words in regard to the 70 Weeks and the Lord´s words that "This generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled"(Mt.24:34).

And perhaps Dee Dee will tell us when the following events happened:

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened,and the moon shall not give its light,and the stars shall fall from heaven,and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken"(Mt.24:29).

It frankly did not take me long to decide that Jerry wasn't of, shall we say, the caliber I would be able to respect. The immediate refuge to blaming Satan (!) for preterist views sounds far better in the mouth of a Benny Hinn blaming demons for stealing his necktie or misplacing his car keys. Is this the kind of discourse we need? "If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?" Substitute "about Satan making plots" for "with tongues" and you will get the idea. Jerry lost all credibility in my eyes in Round 1 with this mulluguthering, with the immediate refuge to casting blame on Satan and appealing to those who are (begging the question!) "guided by the Scriptures." I wouldn't be able to finish a list of people who make the same claim, ranging from Wayne Harrington's purple-cloud exegesis to Dennis McKinsey's "read the Bible like a newspaper."

For the remainder there is little to be said. Jerry falls for the usual "pedantic literalism" in reading Matt. 24:21, unaware (as we have shown here, where we also explain 24:29 beyond the pedantic literalist view) that such hyperbolic language was par for the course for ancient Semites. And were the people delivered? Yes, they were. Christians escaped the wrath on Jerusalem. All who did so were Jews by birth -- these were the "people" of Daniel's who were found "written in the book". Jerry shows himself to be seriously lacking in historical background.

Now to Dee Dee, Round 2:

I find it ironic that some people are so emotionally attached to the "antichrist" and Cobra helicopters and microchip implants that the thought that such things are not going to happen is just devastating. Personally, I find the idea that the G.T. is past a good thing, but hey, who am I to judge? I am, after all, in league not only with satan but also the Pope if you believe Jerry's spin-doctoring. Why just slam preterists when you can get a free jab in at the Catholics too??

Jerry pretends to have answered the intractable conundrum I posited in my opening post. I am going to stick to that point like a piranha on a corndog because IF it is true, then nothing else can be said. It is a mouth-shutter. Here it is again in simple form: Jesus beginning in Mt 24:1; Mk 13:1; Lk 21:5 prophesied many things, including the destruction of the Temple that then existed. The destruction of the Temple that then existed is, by definition, an absolutely unique, datable, and nonrepeatable event. Each of these passages is capped off with the very solemn declaration, "Most assuredly I say to you this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place."(Mt 24:34; Mk 13:30; Lk 21:32). Since the destruction of the Temple that then existed is one of ALL these things, AND is a nonrepeatable event, that unequivocally thrusts the whole passage into the first century. I am sorry my futurist friend but there is no way around it. You can ignore the elephant in the room but that won't stop him from squashing ya. You must deal with this point, and "yeah buts" don't cut the mustard.

Now let me show you where Jerry becomes quite painfully disjunctive and anticontextual. He admits that Lk 21:20-24 is about 70AD. Well my friends in so doing, he has sold the farm. If that "part" was fulfilled in the first century, since Jesus says in Lk 21:32 that ALL these things will happen within "this generation," then ALL of the rest of the Lukan passage from Lk 21:5-21:31HAS to have happened as well including the "coming" in verse 27, or Jesus was a false prophet. And, Lk 21:20-24 is NOT speaking about a different event from Mt 24:15-18. Take a look for yourself and see.

Jerry also engages in a classic case of begging the question in his claims that the Great Tribulation is a time when "Israel" is delivered so this cannot be the event in spoken of in Lk 21:20-24 which are described as the days of vengeance. No dice.Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21 are about the same events… there is no around that, no way to cut out just that one portion of Luke (not even the handy dandy magic dispie gap can help here). And Matthew certainly does not forecast any deliverance for those being judged either… it is just as much a prophesy of divine vengeance as in Luke (see Mt 23:31:39). All this being said, the elect (true Israel) WERE delivered. History records that not one Christian died in the siege of Jerusalem. Jerry will object that we are not true Israel. Really?? Paul says otherwise in Romans 11:17 and Phil 3:3 to name a few. Even in the OT, "Israel" transcended ethnic boundaries to mean the community of faith of belief in YHWH.

And watch Jerry gore himself even further on his own horn - ouch!!

quote:

---

And since we know that the time has not yet arrived when the people of God in Jerusalem will be delivered, we also know that the event described as the "great tribulation" has not come to pass either.

---

Dee Dee has properly pressed home the key points of a) the so-called time texts; b) the shaky attempt to distance Luke's version for Matthew and Mark's. Without this shimmy, dispensationalism/futurism has no future at all. Luke is clearly offering the same presentation, and there are no more grounds for separating it than for making two Sermons on the Mount. The point about the "true Israel" is also helpful.

Back to Jerry:

Dee Dee´s complete argument is based on the idea that the word "generation" can ONLY mean a "the whole multitude of men living at the same time".

But according to Greek experts,it can also mean "men of the same stock,a family" ("Thayer´s Greek English Lexicon").

We can see that the Lord Himself used that same word another time earlier in the same day,and by His use of the word we can see that it cannot possibly mean "the whole multitude of men living at the same time."

He said,"Verily I say unto you,All these things shall come upon this generation"(Mt.23:36).

And the Lord makes it plain as to whom He is referring,saying,"That upon YOU may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth from the blood of righteous Abel unto the BLOOD OF ZECHARIAH,son of Barachiah,WHOM YE SLEW between the temple and the altar"(Mt.23:35).

That group of men whom the Lord was addressing DID NOT KILL ZECHARIAH.He died hundreds of years earlier.So when the Lord says,"Whom YE slew",He means the whole wicked race of Jews.Just two verses earlier He calls them "ye generation of vipers"!

So we can see that the Lord is saying that the blood of Zechariah will come upon this generation,this race of vipers that have killed the prophets of God since the beginning of Israel.

Next,in regard to my points that Scripture reveals that God´s people will be delivered when the Lord comes in His glory,Dee Dee writes that "History records that not one Christian died in the seige of Jerusalem." But Dee Dee fails to give any source for her statement.Perhaps she will tell us which historian said such a thing.

However,Dee Dee fails to realize that Scripture reveals not only that the Lord will deliver His people when He comes,it also also reveals that the Lord will DESTROY those who come against His people:

"And it shall come to pass,in that day,that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem"(Zech.12:9).

According to all the accounts that I have read on AD 70,there was no defeat of the Roman armies.Perhaps Dee Dee can quote some unnamed historian to say that the armies of Rome were defeated in Jerusalem in AD 70.

Next,we see that "immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened,and the moon shall not give its light,and the stars shall fall from heaven."

But Dee Dee says that the words of the Lord cannot be taken in a literal sense at all.First of all,since we see that ALL of the Lord´s previous words are not "symbolic" in any sense,it seems rather strange strange that He would all of a sudden start speaking in "symbolic" way.Especially considering the fact that He was telling them what to be LOOKING for in regard to His return.

And if His words do not mean that there will be actual signs in the heavens,His words must have another meaning.Perhaps Dee Dee will tell us what His words mean.

For the present Jerry leaves behind some of the other points he brought forward, and to which Dee Dee replied, and narrows in his focus on the time texts that speak of "this generation." Dee Dee answered much of this in the next round, but for the present note:

On Christians not dying in Jerusalem -- this is recorded by the church historian Eusebius; see the reference Dee Dee gives below.

On Zech. 12:9 -- see here and what Dee Dee offers below.

Dee Dee, Round 3:

Well, well, well, it is very interesting what Jerry has implicitly conceded, and that is that IF "this generation" is taken to mean a "generation" in the normal ordinary sense of "contemporaries," then my position is undeniably correct. This is true even if one tries to claim that "this generation" does not necessarily mean the generation living when Jesus spoke, but the generation that would see the signs He spoke of, because the ONE UNREPEATABLE event (the destruction of the Temple and city that then existed) has already happened, thus absolutely thrusting the time frame of "this generation" into the first century. Ouch.

Now before I completely dismantle (over the next few posts) Jerry's assertion that "genea" in Matthew 24:34 should be more appropriately understood as "race," let me once again point out the absolutely painful corner that Jerry has painted himself into. He has not and of course CANNOT deny that the Temple that was prophesied to be destroyed was the Temple THEN standing. BUT…. Jesus ties that destruction (and the destruction of the city which then existed) in with the "abomination of desolation" in Daniel 9:26 and 12:11 making it irrefutable that the there is NO future Temple prophesied to be rebuilt. Without this future Temple, the whole futurist house of cards comes tumbling down. There is then NO seven year treaty made by the antichrist who then desecrates the Temple and breaks the treaty halfway through. Jesus makes it crystal clear that Temple and the city that were to be destroyed were the ones that THEN existed. All Jerry has done with his textual gerrymandering is to attempt to extend out the timeframe for the fulfillment of the REST of those things into the indefinite future rather than limiting it to a single generation. Unfortunately for him, the text once again silences him. Let's just look at a few shall we?

Jerry admits that Luke 21:20-24 is about AD70 and tries futilely to deny through starkly naked circular reasoning that Matthew 24:15-21 is speaking about the same event. However, capitalizing only on the part that Jerry has conceded is about AD70, Luke 21:31 makes it clear that ALL of these events (i.e. Luke 21:5-31 - which also includes the destruction of the first century Temple) are to take place within a relatively short time span because Jesus said that once "you see ALL these things happening, know that the Kingdom of God is NEAR." Now Luke 21:20-24 (and the destruction of the first century Temple) is ONE of all these things. We moderns CAN NEVER see that happening and know that anything is NEAR. That EVENT is nonrepeatable and long past. Jerry can't even beg out for some kind of "double-fulfillment" because not only is it NONREPEATABLE, Luke describes it as the days of vengeance and wrath upon the Jewish people, NOT deliverance (which is why Jerry HAS to admit it is about AD70). So, the text makes it clear that ALL of these things will happen in such a short proximity to each other that it is possible to see ALL of them happening and know that a great eschatological triumph is NEAR. Ouch. Futurism is gored on yet another time text so I guess it ain't quite true that

quote:

---

Dee Dee´s complete argument is based on the idea that the word "generation" can ONLY mean a "the whole multitude of men living at the same time".

---

Not much needs saying here. Jerry responds:

Dee Dee just cannot leave behind her mistaken notion that the Lord Jesus is saying that those men to whom He was speaking would still be alive to see all the things fulfilled.However,how could that be possible considering the fact that the Lord Himself said that He did not know WHEN these things would come to pass?And if He did not know when they would come to pass,how could He possibly say that they would still be alive when they were fulfilled?Here are His words:

"But of that day and hour knoweth no man,no,not the angels in heaven,but My Father ONLY"(Mt.24:36).

The Lord Jesus did not know the "times or the seasons" because those things "the Father has put in His own power"(Acts1:7).By His own admission He did not know when these things would happen,so He surely would never speculate and tell these men that they would see these things when in fact He could not know if that was true or not.

Next,Dee Dee did not provide her references to her statement that "History records that not one Christian died in the seige of Jerusalem."Nor did she even comment on the fact that Scripture reveals that when Jerusalem is attacked the Lord Jesus says that "I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem"(Zech.12:9).

We all know that those who came against Jerusalem in AD 70 enjoyed a complete and total victory.No one who came against Jerusalem was destroyed.We also know why Dee Dee did not respond to this point.She has no answer.

Immediately before the Lord told His Apostles of the signs of His coming,he said the following words to say to Jerusalem:

"For I say unto you,Ye shall not see Me henceforth,till ye shall say,Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord"(Mt.23:39).

In other words,the Lord´s return would be marked by Israel´s repentance.But we all know that Israel did not repent in AD 70.But all this means nothing to Dee Dee.When Scriptual facts do not fit into her ideas,she just IGNORES them.

Dee Dee also failed to answer my question as to the meaning of the Lord´s words about the things which will immediately follow the great tribulation.If His words do not literally mean that there will be signs in the heavens,then His words must have another meaning.After all,all Scripture "is profitable for doctrine,for reproof,for correction,for instruction in righteousness..."

So perhaps this time Dee Dee will give us her interpretation of the meaning of the Lord´s words in regard to these things.And Dee Dee seems to think that these words of the Lord were only figurative,perhaps she will consider the fact that John actually saw visions of these so-called "figurative" words.

"There was a great earthquake,and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair;and the moon became like blood;and the stars of heaven fell unto the earth...and the kings of the earth,and the great men,and the rich men,and the chief captians,and the mighty men,and every slave,and every free man,hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains..."(Rev.6:12-15).

And finally,I will ask Dee Dee when ALL THE TRIBES OF THE EARTH saw the Lord come in His glory?:

"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven;and then shall ALL THE TRIBES OF THE EARTH mourn,and THEY SHALL SEE THE SON OF MAN COMING IN THE CLOUDS of heaven with power and great glory"(Mt.24:30).

Did that happen in AD 70,Dee Dee?

Jerry's "mix and match" attempt at the beginning is profoundly inane. It was said to the disciples that they would not know times or seasons. Jesus only claims not to know day or hour; Dee Dee will say more of this below. About all Jerry deserves credit for -- debating credit -- is pressing back on the points Dee Dee did not answer -- credit he loses for ignoring about 80% of what Dee Dee did say. On the other hand, I'm not blaming Dee Dee at all -- this is the same distraction tactic that Skeptic X uses when he can't answer arguments.

The point about Matthew 23:39 is one worth noting. Jerry tries to tie this repentance to the parousia return, but the word is not used in the surrounding prayer at all. I would answer that this repentance is still in our own future; there is no sign that it is a predicate for the parousia here. (Note of course that this is before the Olivet Discourse.)

Now Dee Dee, Round 4:

Perhaps Jerry needs to slow down a bit because he has utterly failed to answer the numerous proofs I have given for an irrefutably first century context. He seems to think that posting another question is an adequate answer. Not! So here again are just SOME of the fatal challenges that Jerry has either ignored or obfuscated or both:

ONE: "Genea" indisputably does mean in our text "the whole multitude of men living at the same time."; TWO: Even "genea" did mean "race," the specific identification of destruction of the Temple that then existed and the city that then existed unequivocally thrusts the entire prophecy into the first century because all the prophesied things MUST happen within relatively quick succession as totally necessitated by Matthew 24:33, Mark 13:29, and Luke 21:31.; THREE: Since said desctruction is a NONREPEATABLE event , there is NO prophesy of any future Temple for any future antichrist to desecrate ;FOUR: There are no years left to Daniel 9 since Jesus specifically identifies what Temple is in view in that prophecy - the first century Temple.; FIVE: Matthew 24:15-21 and Luke 21:20-24 are speaking of the same event. ; SIX: His interpretation puts the inane statement in Christ's mouth, "Most assuredly I say to you, the Jewish race will not pass away until all these things happen to the Jewish race," a reductio ad absurdum.

What do I hear in response do all these issues?? Nothing but crickets.

So now Jerry raises yet another of his infamous "yeah but" questions without actually addressing the fatal blows already dealt to his system. He is now claiming that since Jesus said that He did not know the day or hour (Matthew 24:36)that He certainly could not have been making a timing statement in verse 34. Poppycock. I have already proven from OTHER timing verses in this very passage that my position is cumulatively correct. Exactly what is the problem with saying that the generation can be known but not the exact day and hour? When a woman is pregnant no one knows up front the exact day or hour of the delivery, but they certainly know it will be within a certain time span. This is why Jesus exhorted His disciples to pray that their flight be not on a Sabbath (and what relevance would THAT have to modern times) nor in the winter (again much more relevant to a first century context). It would surely happen to them but there was some sway about where in that large time frame these events would fall.

Jerry also complains that I did not provide references to my statement that no Christians died in the siege of Jerusalem. Is that the best he can do?? I have numerous sources for this information but here is just one for the record… Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.5.3. He also complains that I did not comment on Zechariah 12:9, "I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem." Wrong again, I was alluding to that issue when I said, "Now whenever it gets too hot in the NT kitchen for Jerry he likes to trot out selected portions of the OT…" Until Jerry deals with the numerous mortal wounds to position within the Discourse itself, I will only comment briefly on Zechariah 12 (but enough to be a tack in his seat nonetheless). Jerry said,

quote:

---

No one who came against Jerusalem was destroyed.

---

Since I regularly deal with Skeptics who are pedantic literalists like Jerry, I can't help but appreciate the language here. If Jerry reads this, perhaps he would answer our quiz question:

1. You walk into the home of a friend in the Ancient Near East. He says, "You have extremely honored me by coming into my abode. I am not worthy of it. This house is yours; you may burn it if you wish. My children are also at your disposal; I would sacrifice them all for your pleasure." What do you do?
   1. Burn down his house and kill his children, just like the man says.
   2. Call the police and the mental hospital to pick up this obviously sick man.
   3. Run screaming from the house.
   4. Reply, "I am unworthy of your honor and of being a guest in your home."
   
   

Regrettably Jerry is an example of one of many Christians who continue to read a text produced in a society highly geared towards symbolism as being literal -- as Dee Dee puts it, being "hopelessly anachronistic". We point readers to our same points against Skeptic X here and recommend as well that Jerry read something like this. If he doesn't, he may as well lay his back bare for a Skeptical whupping someday.

As it turns out though, the preceding got Jerry off his duff a bit and he produced a much longer post to end Round 4:

It has been a long time since I have seen any thing so pitiful as Dee Dee´s interpretation of the following Scripture: "And it shall come to pass in that day,that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem"(Zech.12:9).

I remarked that "No one who came against Jerusalem was destroyed."In response,Dee Dee says: "Really?? Funny,most of the world thinks that the Roman Emrire has long since ceased to exist."

But Dee Dee,can´t you read? The Lord says that He will destroy the nations IN THAT DAY!!!

She says that "the Romans never prospered as they once did after 70AD and the Empire´s decline can well be placed as beginning at that very point."Well,the Lord doesn´t say that IN THAT DAY that the nations would begin their decline.He says that HE will defeat them in that day.

The reason that Dee Dee is so desperate that she would offer such wild exegesis is simple: If the verse is taken literally,then Dee Dee then must admit the the ideas of the Preterists are in error.But I say,why shouldn´t we take these verses literally? When the Lord ascended into heaven from the Mount of Olives,those witnessing the event were told that He "shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven"(Acts1:11).And in the prophetic Scriptures we see Him standing on the Mount of Olives while He fights against the nations that come against Jerusalem:

"Then shall the Lord go forth,and fight against those nations,as when He fought in the day of battle.And His feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives"(Zech.14:3,4).

But since Dee Dee has no place for this in her eschatology she is forced to say that all this means is the beginning of the decline of Rome.How pitiful!

Now I will answer all six of Dee Dee´s points,and you will see that a closeexamination reveals just how bankrupt her ideas are.

Number One: " 'Genea' indisputably does mean in our text 'the whole multitude of men living at the same time." However,she provides no evidence.More later on this.

Number Two: "Even if 'genea' did mean race; the specific identification of the Temple that then existed and the city that then existed unequivocally thrusts the entire prophecy into the first century because all the prophesised things MUST happen within a relatively quick succession as totally necessitated by Matt.24:33,Mark 13:29,and Luke 21:31."

First of all,Dee Dee speaks of "the city that then existed".But the city of Jerusalem that existed is the same city that existed after 70AD.And the same can be said for the Temple.By the words of the Prophet Haggai we can see what might be described as a principle of CONTINUITY in the history of the Temple.The Temple that stood at the time of the Lord could be leveled to the ground and then be rebuilt and still be considered the same Temple.At the time of the rebuilding of the Temple after it had been razed,Haggi says:

"Who is left among you that saw this house in its former glory?"(Hag.2:3).

The Lord of hosts says,"The latter splendor of this house shall be greater than the former"(v.9).

So the rebuilt Temple can also be referred to as "this house" and be in the stream of the two preceding Temples according to the words of the Lord of hosts.Therefore,we see that there is only one city,Jerusalem,and there is only one Temple.

Next,Dee Dee says that "all the prophesised things must happen within relative quick succession as totally necessitated by Matt.24:33,Mark 13:28,and Luke 21:31." But an examination of those verses indicates no such thing:

"So likewise ye,when ye shall see all these things,know that it is near,even at the doors"(Mt.24:33).

Here the Lord is addressing the "ye" to the whole race of Jews,as He did in the following verse: "For I say unto you,Ye shall not see Me henceforth,till ye shall say,Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord"(Mt.23:39). Here,the people to whom He was speaking never said, "Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord".But we do know that in the future there will be people in Jerusalem that do say those
words.Therefore,it becomes obvious that when the Lord used the word "ye" He was referring to the Jewish race.

Next,these same verses state that "when ye shall see ALL THESE THINGS,know that it is near…"

One of the things that they must "see" is the signs that will appear in the heavens,such as the sun being darkened,the moon not giving its light,and the stars falling from heaven.And from the context of the Lord´s words,it is plain that these things will be SEEN-"When ye shall SEE all these things"-"Take heed,WATCH and pray"…"And I say unto you I say unto all,WATCH"…"So ye also,when ye SEE these things come to pass…WATCH ye,therefore,and pray…"

However,Dee Dee says that there is no need to WATCH for ALL THESE THINGS,but instead we should only WATCH for some of the things.In Dee Dee´s theology there is no place for any actual signs in the heavens.So she just "spiritualizes" them away.But why should we believe Dee Dee instead of the Lord,Who is warning one and all to be WATCHFUL for all these things?

Number Three: "Since said destruction is a NONREPEATABLE EVENT,there is no prophecy of any future Temple for any future anti-christ to desecrate."

The Holy Writings contain many "types".The destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 is a "type" of the "great tribulation" to come.Epiphanes defiled the Temple then standing,and he is a "type" of the coming anti-christ who shall also desecrate the Temple.So an understanding of the "principle of the continuity in the history of the Temple" combined with a knowledge of the "types" proves that this argument of Dee Dee´s has no merit whatsoever.

Number Four:"There are no years left to Daniel since Jesus specifically identifies what Temple is in view in that prophecy-that first century Temple."

But again,if one understands the "principle of continuity" of the Temple there is no doubt that this argument of Dee Dee is worthless.Besides,we know that the events described as happening at the end of the 70 Weeks have not yet come to pass.Who in their right mind would believe that "everlasting righteousness"(Dan.9:24) has been brought unto Jerusalem?

Number Five: "Matt.24:15-21 and Luke 21:20-24 are speaking of the same event." Again,Dee Dee gives no evidence to support her claim.But those of us who understand the "principle of continuity" in regard to the Temple and who understand the "types" know that the passages in Luke are a "type" of the great tribulation described in the passages of Matthew.We see that the days of tribulation will be "shortened"(Mt.24:22),and that happens,as previously mentioned,when the Lord seeks "to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem"(Zech.12:9).And all Dee Dee can say is that this must represent the beginning of the decline of Rome.Again,Dee Dee has no place in her theology for this event so she must "spiritualize" this verse away.

Number Six: "His interpretation puts the innane statement in Christ´s mouth.'Most assuredly I say to you,the Jewish race will not pass away until all these things happen to the Jewish race,' a reductio ad absurdum."

Well,if anyone is an expert on the ABSURD,it is Dee Dee.But the Lord says that the Jewish race shall not pass until all these things be fulfilled.And considering the many horrors that the nation of Israel must suffer through,it is not surprising at all that the Lord would assure them that their beloved chosen nation of Israel would continue and would inherit all the blessings that had been promised.Why would this seem strange?Did not Paul assure them in like manner that "God hath not cast away His people whom He foreknew"?So there is nothing absurd in the idea that the Lord would assure these men that ethnic Israel would survive the many trials and tribulations that will take place.

Number Six: This is about the meaning of the word "generation" at Matthew 24:34. As I pointed out earlier,the Lord Himself says that not even He knows "the day" when that will happen (Mt.24:36).He states that the "times and seasons" has "the Father put in His own power"(Acts1:7).So are we to assume that the Lord Himself,Who doesn´t know the day or the "times and seasons",is going to SPECULATE and say that the day will happen during the lifetimes of His Apostles?That is what Dee Dee does.She builds her doctrines on nothing but SPECULATION!She asks,"Exactly what is the problem with saying that the generation can be known but not the exact day and hour?"

Well,John was forced to correct some other speculation concering other words of the Lord Jesus at John 21:21-23.On this occasion,the Lord Jesus said to Peter concerning John,"If I will that he tarry till I come,what is that to thee?" These words started some SPECULATING that the Lord had said that John should not die.They has INFERRED that the Lord´s words must mean that.But John corrected this faulty inference.This false rumor shows the possibility of misunderstanding God´s words.Christians must seek to understand God´s Word accurately.And that is not possible if we attempt to build doctrine on wild speculation and inference.

And that is exactly what is wrong with Dee Dee´s approach to Scripture.The Lord states in no uncertain words that He does not know the day when these things will come to pass.But Dee Dee makes a wild assertion that He may not know the exact time,He surely has an idea as to the approximate time.And with that she attempts to build her doctrine.Another pitiful excuse for SOUND DOCTRINE.

Now that I have demonstrated conclusively that none of Dee Dee´s SIX points have any merit whatsoever,perhaps she will answer my previous question.When did the following take place?:

"…and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn,and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory"(Mt.24:30).

And when did the following occur?:

""When the Son of Man shall come in His glory…before Him shall be gathered all the nations;and He shall separate them one from another"(Mt.25:31,32).

Since I answered all of Dee Dee´s points,perhaps she will now return the favor.

I'll give Jerry a hint about "in that day" -- it isn't always "just a day" --

Gen. 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens...

Wasn't the earth created in seven days, not one? This is real -- keep in mind I just had a Skeptic who tried to claim contradiction on this basis. I'll ask Jerry the same questions. May we conclude that Genesis 35:3 makes clear that Jacob experienced his troubles during a single day of distress? How about Leviticus 14:1-9, does this mean that the rules in effect in the day (14:2) of a leper's cleansing, which take about a week, take merely one day to go through (probably they meant that it would seem like a week even though it takes a mere Jerry day!). A "day" just didn't necessarily carry the meaning of a 24 hour period -- does Jerry expect the "Day of the Lord" to last only 24 hours? (It would probably shock him to know that the word usage draws back to a general understanding of an ideal warrior as someone who could vanquish a foe in a day!) So in other words, Zech by no means translates out to God defeating Rome or any enemy in a 24-hour period. That's the sort of reading pedantic literalism -- which I daresay is the truly "pitiful" aspect of this discussion -- will get you. In this regard Jerry is no better off than Skeptic X with the way he answers the matter of signs in the heavens. We'll see Dee Dee elucidate on this next up.

We answer about Acts 1:11 in our Olivet link above. Now let's look at that Haggai bit. One of the issues here is that Jerry reads "this house" as though it allows a present tense understanding. There are two problems with this. The first is that the word "this" (zeh) means "this" or "that" or "the other" -- so that there is no real sense of a present tense at all. The second problem is that the use of the word "latter" and the distinguishing from the other Temple is a distinction that is not made in the Olivet Discourse. Jerry is resting a great deal of weight on a tiny Hebrew word that won't bear the pressure, especially when the respective contexts are considered. Dee Dee will note a similar point with the NIV and NKJV and offer some added pressure as well.

One point Jerry can be granted is on types. I would allow the possibility of a "repeat performance" as I have in my Olivet essay -- but this would not preclude the need for a thorough and complete fulfillment by 70 AD. The types argument does not derail Dee Dee's arguments at all -- if just gives Jerry and other futurists a chance to suggest a future fulfillment, and leaves them with an enormous number of problems still for the past.

Has "everlasting righteousness" been brought to Jerusalem? No, but that is not a problem because Jerry hasn't got his prophecy straight. Daniel 9:24 lays out things for the Jews to accomplish, and which they failed to do. When Jesus entered Jerusalem on a donkey, that was their chance to recognize him as King and finish their transgression, and so. They didn't. They failed in their assignment, as the rest of the passage predicts they would.

Dee Dee, Round 5:

First I will comment on Jerry's misguided reliance on Zech. 12 and the important point that I made that he conveniently left out. He gets really excited over my statement that the decline of the Roman Empire can be dated to the destruction of Jerusalem and exclaims:

quote:

---

But Dee Dee,can´t you read? The Lord says that He will destroy the nations IN THAT DAY!!!

---

Now to Jerry, round five -- in which Jerry returns to form and ignores the responses given:

No one who read my last response would argue that I did not respond to all of Dee Dee´s SIX POINTS. I answered each and every point in detail.I then asked her to return the favor and answer my two questions.But she did not!She did not answer either one of them.Instead,she goes back to her same old points that I have already refuted,and all the while not adding anything new.She just rehashes the same old thing,all the while EVADING the qustions I posed.

And I can very well understand why she would EVADE the questions.First,I asked her when the following verse occurred: "…and then shall all the tribes of the earth…shall see the coming of the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory"(Mt.24:30).

We all know that that never happened.But the Lord said that event would be "seen".And my next question also concerns this very same event,when the Lord comes "in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory".When did this event happen,Dee Dee?:

"When the Son of Man shall come in His glory…before Him shall be gathered all the nations;and he shall separate them one from another…"(Mt.25:31,32).

When did that happen,Dee Dee?Can´t you read,or did you just evade these questions on purpose?This is the third post where I have asked you about when Matthew 24:30 happened,and I have yet to get an answer.

I will address a couple of her points,beginning with her words that because we see the battle being fought in Jerusalem on horseback then this could not possibly be referring to a battle that can be fought in the future.Dee Dee,are you aware that the modern army of the USA has units made up of soldiers who fight on horseback?Do you not believe that it would be possible that circumstances might bring to pass a situation where it might be an advantage to fight on horseback.So we see that since Scripture does not match her ideas as to how a battle might be fought in the future she is ready to dismiss anything that might be "literal" in these verses.

Next,she says that the passages in Zecharia must have happened in the first century "when the Shepherd is struck".But if we continue to read from the verses that speak of the Sheperd,we read the following: "And His feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives" while He "fights against those nations" that come against Jerusalem"(Zech.14:3,4). Perhaps Dee Dee will tell us when that occurred in the first century.She asks why we shouldn´t believe that this refers to an ancient battle?Well,Dee Dee,tell us when this happened in ancient times and then I might consider your idea that this refers to an ancient battle.

Earlier Dee Dee said that the word "generation"(genea) at Matthew 23:36 could not refer to the wicked race of Jews that the Lord Himself called "ye generation of vipers".But the Greek expert that the Preterists themselves quote extensively agrees with me.One can go to the web site of "PreteristArchive.com" and see the many times they quote the Greek expert,Henry Alford (c.1810-1871),who was the Dean of Canterbury.Now listen to what he says concerning the use of "genea":

"It may be well to show that 'genea' has in Hellenistic Greek the meaning of a race or family of people.See Jeremiah 8:3,70. Compare Matthew 23:36 with verse 35…'This generation' did not slay Zacharias-so that the whole people are addressed.See also chapter 12:45,in which the meaning absolutely requires this sense"(Anderson,"Misunderstood Texts of the New Testament",p.47).

So even the Greek expert that the Preterists themselves cite repeatedly agrees with me concerning the use of "generation" at Matthew 23:36.And we can see that this must also be the case later in this same discouse of the Lord: "For I say unto YOU,YE shall not see Me henceforth,till YE shall say,Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord"(Mt.23:39).

And since the people standing there that day never said those words,we must believe that the Lord´s words are addressed to "the whole people",as Alford says.The Lord is addressing the "race of Jews",especially those in the future who will indeed say,'Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord".

And since even the Greek expert of the Preterists says that the word "genea" can indeed be used in the sense of a "race of men",then we can see that it can be used in that sense at Matthew 24:34.And since it is used in that sense in that verse,the word "ye" in the previous verse can also be used as referring to the race of Jews.And with that all of Dee Dee´s arguments go up in a cloud of smoke-exposed for what they really are--nothing but hot air!

Even though Dee Dee continues to EVADE the questions I posed,I will answer another of her verses that she pulls out to attempt to prove her weird ideas.She says that the following verse applies to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70:

"There are some standing here,who shall not taste death,till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom"(Mt.16:28).

Are we suppose to believe that the coming of the Lord Jesus in His kingdom is the same thing as the "great tribulation"?The events of this tribulation are so bad that we see the words,"Blessed are the dead"(Rev.14:13).Are we suppose to believe that the Apostles were praying for this time of horror when they uttered the words,"Thy kingdom come"? How ridiculous!!! This only proves that Dee Dee will say ANYTHING in order to derfend the indefensible.

If we but examine the words of Peter,there can be no doubt that the Lord´s words at Matthew 16:28 were fulfilled at the Transfiguration (Mt.17:1-8):

"…we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,but we were witnesses of His majesty.For He received from God,the Father,honor and glory,when there came such a voice to Him from the excellent glory,This is My beloved Son,in Whom I am well pleased.And this voice which came from heaven we heard,when we were with Him in the holy mount"(2Pet.1:16-18).

Therefore,we can be sure that these Apostles saw the Lord in His kingdom at the Transfiguration.Anyone who believes that the "kingdom" refers to the destruction of the "great tribulation" must have a screw loose somewhere.

So,as anyone can plainly see,I have answered Dee Dee´s points in a straightfoward way.I have not been forced into having to "spiritualize" every single Scripture that seems to demonstrate that my beliefs are wrong,as Dee Dee does.I have used the Greek expert that the Preterists themselves use to make my point.I have used the words of Haggai to prove the idea of the "principle of the continuity of the Temple".I have used the Lord´s own words where He Himself says that He does not know the "day" when all the things He described will come to pass.

And what do we hear from Dee Dee.Only her feeble attempts to throw out the Scriptures that prove that she is wrong because they do not match her ideas as to how the great battle in Jerusalem will be fought.And she cannot even make her "spiritualizing" to match with the events of history.I quoted the following verse:

"And it shall come to pass,in that day,that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem"(Zech.12:9).

Dee Dee said that this refers to the fact that "the Roman Empire has long since ceased to exist."She further states that "the Roman´s never prospered as they once did after 70AD and the Empire´s decline can well be placed as beginning at that very point."

Well,not only does Dee Dee attempt to re-write the events in Holy Scripture,she also attempts to do the same with the history of the Roman Empire.And that is because Rome continued to prosper after AD70.We see that the ruler Nerva "enlarged the Roman Empire to its greatest extent" between the years 98 to 117 AD ("Encyclopedia Americana").

And when Dee Dee is not attempting to change the plain meaning of Scripture or is not attempting to change the facts of history,she is EVADING the questions that I ask.These questions are very relevant to the subject of this discussion,but Dee Dee continues to EVADE them.

I will ask her one more time.Dee Dee,when did these events occur?:

"…and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn,and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory"(Mt.24:30).

"When the Son of Man shall come in His glory…before Him shall be gathered all the nations;and He shall separate them one from another…"(Mt.25:31).

As that great American,Cassius Clay,said,"You can run,but you cannot hide."

We'll assume that Jerry is right about the modern military having horse regiments -- I don't know if that is true or not -- but the only way such "display" or ceremonial troops would become "advantageous" is if all of our airplanes, tanks, battleships, and vehicles are gone. Then we have to train those horses and people for battle as opposed to display. Y2K didn't manage that; maybe Jerry thinks we'll have a repeat of The Day the Earth Stood Still. We'll see Dee Dee answer the rest (including Jerry's amateurish attempt to address the history of Rome from an encyclopedia -- Jerry's using Skeptical research methods!).

Dee Dee, Round Six:

Wow, Jerry actually believes that a future battle against Jerusalem will be fought on horseback! Why aren't the Palestinians building up a considerable cavalry if this the optimum way to attack the Jews?? This would be hysterical if Jerry weren't actually serious. Will Jerry be consistent and also believe, according to Ezekiel 38 and 39, that "Russia" will also fight Israel on horseback with swords and shields (38:4), bows and arrows (39:3), and wooden javelins and spears (39:10)? Notice also that Israelites will not need to go out to the forests to gather wood (39:10). Really? How many Israelites do you think are doing that today?? And notice the targets of the enemy attack: silver, gold, and cattle (39:13). Does Jerry really think that anyone is interested in Israel's livestock?? Where are the Cobra helicopters Jerry?

Jerry again mishandles scholarly sources. Desperate to find someone that agrees with him (even most futurists don't), he quotes Henry Alford concerning "genea" -

quote:

---

"It may be well to show that 'genea' has in Hellenistic Greek the meaning of a race or family of people.See Jeremiah 8:3,70. Compare Matthew 23:36 with verse 35…'This generation' did not slay Zacharias-so that the whole people are addressed.See also chapter 12:45,in which the meaning absolutely requires this sense"

---

No comment is needed for now; Jerry in his round 6 remains in form:

Dee Dee states that the "cosmic disturbances" and the event when "all the tribes of the earth shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory" refers to "the events of the destruction of Jerusalem and the sweeping away of the vestiges of the Old Covenant order".

However,it is perfectly clear that her statement is utterly unjustified.Proving again her ineptitude,she overlooks the words that state that the "cosmic signs" and the coming of the Lord happen AFTER the "great tribulation-"Immediately AFTER the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened…"

So it is obvious to anyone who would use their brain that these "cosmic disturbances" could not be in reference to the destruction of Jerusalem,because according to Scripture that must take place BEFORE the "cosmic disturbances".Dee Dee,what were you thinking?More blunders of this magnitude and the preterists themselves will disown you.

These verses are so important to the whole scheme of the Olivet Discourse,and this is the best that Dee Dee could do!How could this happen?How could she overlook the words,"Immediately after the tribulation"?

And WHEN,we might ask,did all the tribes of the earth SEE the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory?By the words of John we know that this is not just figurative language,because John states in no uncertain terms that "He cometh in the clouds,and EVERY EYE SHALL SEE HIM…and all the kindreds of the earth shall wail because of Him"(Rev.1:7). If this stupendous event happened in 70AD,surely there would be some mention of it in the history books.But I know of no such account of this astounding event in any account of history.

And what about the event that follows His coming when every eye shall see Him?-- "When the Son of Man shall come in His glory…before shall be gathered all the nations;and He shall separate them one from another,as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats"(Mt.25:31,32).

Did this take place in heaven,or upon earth?Joel supplies the answer: "I will gather all nations,and bring them down into the Valley of Jehoshaphat…Let the nations be weakened,and come up to