Evidence for God from Science

I'll repeat the issue in Revelation 11 here, in a separate post, because it absolutely must be dealt with:

puritan lad wrote:Here is the big clincher, though by all means not the last of the evidence.

Luke 21:20-24
“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

Revelation 11:1,2,8
"Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel stood, saying, “Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there. But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two months... And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified."

At this point, we are dealing with more than just a similarity of language between the Olivet Discourse and Revelation. We are dealing with identical themes, themes have we know have seen their historical fulfillment in 70 AD. Therefore, the burden of proof lies on you to show that there will be two great tribulations, and two occurances where the holy city (clearly earthly Jerusalem) will be trampled on by Gentiles for 42 months.

Firstly, neither of these two passages speak of a 'great tribulation'. They do share a common theme - tribulation on God's people - but there is nothing to indicate that they speak of the same event (exegeting from the common theme and common symbolism commits the logical fallacy of the undistributed middle).

Secondly, the contexts of these two passages are completely different. One is explicitly a warning of the destruction of Jerusalem to those who would experience the destruction of Jerusalem, whereas the other contains no reference to Israel or Jerusalem, and was sent to Christians who would not experience the destruction of Jerusalem.

Thirdly, you have already agreed with me that:

• Revelation takes symbols which in the Old Testament were used of Israel and the Jews, and applies them to the body of Christ and to the Christians

But here you take the symbols of the temple and the holy city in Revelation, and apply them not to the body of Christ and to the Christians, but to Israel and Jerusalem.

The fact is that the Revelation has already defined these terms for us. The holy city has been previously defined as the bride of Christ, the body of belivers:

Revelation 3:
12 The one who conquers I will make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will never depart from it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God (the new Jerusalem that comes down out of heaven from my God), and my new name as well.

Further proof of this is found later in the book:

Revelation 21:
2 And I saw the holy city—the new Jerusalem—descending out of heaven from God, made ready like a bride adorned for her husband.

9 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven final plagues came and spoke to me, saying, “Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb!”
10 So he took me away in the Spirit to a huge, majestic mountain and showed me the holy city, Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God.

Then there's the astonishing fact that you want to refer to 'the earthly Jerusalem' as both 'the holy city' and 'Sodom and Egypt'. It is not possible that the same city could be described in such completely opposing terms. This is noted very early by Paula and Eustochium (Letters of Jerome, Letter XLV, Paula and Eustochium to Marcella, paragraph 6, 386 AD).

The 'temple of God' likewise has been previously defined by Revelation as the body of believers:

Revelation 3:
12 The one who conquers I will make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will never depart from it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God (the new Jerusalem that comes down out of heaven from my God), and my new name as well.

Further proof of this is found later in the book:

Revelation 7:
15 For this reason they are before the throne of God, and they serve him day and night in his temple, and the one seated on the throne will shelter them.

See also Revelation 14:15-17; 15:5-6, 8; 16:1, 17; 21:22, in which the temple of God is described as a spiritual dwellingplace of God, not as the literal temple in Jerusalem.

Fortigurn wrote: Paul found the exact opposite in his experience - everywhere he went, the Jews tried to get the Romans to punish him, imprison him, or kill him, but the Romans were never interested, and always let him go.

Not always. Nero had Paul beheaded.

Fortigurn wrote: Well that's just it you see, there is no tribulation mentioned there. He's referring generally to 'the persecution, kingdom, and endurance that are in Jesus', just as Paul says 'it is through much tribulation that we enter the Kingdom of God'.

Let's try again.

Rev. 1:9
“I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.”

I could go into the greek, but I don't deem it necessary as you are capable of doing that yourself.

Fortigurn wrote: the great tribulation of which Revelation speaks is still future.

Says Who? So do you acknowledge a belief in 2 “great tribulations”, or is this great tribulation the same as the one in the Olivet Discourse?

Fortigurn wrote: No, John tells us that Christ was crucified 'near to the city', and Paul bases and entire theological argument on the fact that Christ was crucified 'outside the gate'. Both of them declare that Christ was crucified outside the city.

Come on Fortigurn. Christ was crucified, for all intensive purposes, in Jerusalem. (OK, outside the city). The city identified in Rev. 11 is clearly earthly Jerusalem. To argue otherwise, you will have to establish that there is another “holy city” with another “temple” that “will be trampled on by gentiles for 42 months” where “our Lord was crucified”. You will also show how the First Century Churches of Asia Minor would have understood this statement. We know that earthly Jerusalem matches the description above. You job is to find another match. Good Luck.

Fortigurn wrote: According to the Olivet prophecy, the 'times of the Gentiles' start after AD 70 - at the point that Jerusalem is destroyed, and the Jews are led away captive into all nations. I believe that covers a lot more than 42 months.

Wrong. The trampling by Gentiles of Jerusalem lasted almost exactly 42 months. (Don't forget Luke 21:32 while you're at it).

Fortigurn wrote:the temple of God is described as a spiritual dwelling place of God, not as the literal temple in Jerusalem.

Do you believe that the “spiritual dwelling place of God” will be tread underfoot by the gentiles for forty-two months”?

Again, anyone can plainly see the relationship between Revelation and the Olivet Dsscourse. They are one and the same.

puritan lad wrote:

Fortigurn wrote: Paul found the exact opposite in his experience - everywhere he went, the Jews tried to get the Romans to punish him, imprison him, or kill him, but the Romans were never interested, and always let him go.

Not always. Nero had Paul beheaded.

Paul was not beheaded by the instigation of the Jews. My point was that although the Jews tried to get the Romans to punish him, imprison him, or kill him, the Romans were never interested, and always let him go.

As the Roman authorities observed, if Paul himself had not requested an audience with Ceasar, they would have let him go.

You have yet to provide any evidence for the argument you are making that the Jews were given authority by the Romans to persecute the Christians, and that Christians in Asia Minor were martyred as a result.

Fortigurn wrote: Well that's just it you see, there is no tribulation mentioned there. He's referring generally to 'the persecution, kingdom, and endurance that are in Jesus', just as Paul says 'it is through much tribulation that we enter the Kingdom of God'.

Let's try again.

Rev. 1:9
“I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.”

I could go into the greek, but I don't deem it necessary as you are capable of doing that yourself.

Perhaps the Greek might be good at this point, since you're committing the fallacy of exegeting the English. You're taking a phrase, digging out one word, and ignoring the others. There is no particular specific tribulation here, he's simply talking about the trials which come upon the servant of Christ and the citizen of the Kingdom.

To date you have not dealt with the fact that the letters to the seven ecclesias reveal no evidence of a widespread persecution by either Rome or Jews.

Fortigurn wrote: the great tribulation of which Revelation speaks is still future.

Says Who?

Well says you for a start. You claimed that the 'tribulation' being experienced by John and the ecclesias in Asia Minor was persecution by the Romans and Jews. I pointed out that the letter to Philadephia speaks of a tribulation which would come upon the OIKOUMENH, and which was yet future - so it couldn't be any current persecution by the Romans and Jews.

You then claimed that this tribulation spoken of in the letter to Philadelphia was the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, from which you said they were assured they would be kept safe.

This immediately placed you in the position of saying that there was a 'tribulation' in Revelation 1 which was currently being experienced by the ecclesias in Asia Minor, and that there was a second tribulation which had not yet occurred, which would be the tribulation of the Olivet prophecy (from which Philadephia, you said, would be kept).

I responded that it didn't make any sense to tell Philadelphia that they would be kept from the tribulation of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, because they were nowhere near the place, and none of the other ecclesias in Asia Minor would be affected by it either.

You then suggested that this tribulation (which was still future to the Philadelphians), was part of the 'judgment on Rome' which took place when Nero died and civil war broke out.

This provided you with a 'tribulation' which you could argue would be experienced throughout the entire OIKOUMENH, but it also meant you were now arguing for two different tribulations, and it placed the onus of evidence on you to demonstrate that the civil war of AD 68-9 constituted a 'tribulation' which extended throughout the OIKOUMENH and which directly affected the Christians.

I don't think there's any dispute that even if John is speaking of a 'great tribulation' which was currently being experienced by the Christians, it is not the tribulation spoken of in the letter to Philadelphia. But neither of these are spoken of as a 'great tribulation' in any case.

So do you acknowledge a belief in 2 “great tribulations”, or is this great tribulation the same as the one in the Olivet Discourse?

I have been through this before. The 'great tribulation' in the Olivet prophecy is confined to Israel and the Jews. It does not refer at all to a tribulation on the entire OIKOUMENH. Whatever tribulation is spoken of in the letter to Philadelphia, it cannot be the 'great tribulation' of the Olivet propheccy (note also that no 'great tribulation' is referred to in Revelation 11).

Fortigurn wrote: No, John tells us that Christ was crucified 'near to the city', and Paul bases and entire theological argument on the fact that Christ was crucified 'outside the gate'. Both of them declare that Christ was crucified outside the city.

Come on Fortigurn. Christ was crucified, for all intensive purposes, in Jerusalem. (OK, outside the city).

Thank you, outside the city will do nicely.

The city identified in Rev. 11 is clearly earthly Jerusalem. To argue otherwise, you will have to establish that there is another “holy city” with another “temple” that “will be trampled on by gentiles for 42 months” where “our Lord was crucified”. You will also show how the First Century Churches of Asia Minor would have understood this statement. We know that earthly Jerusalem matches the description above. You job is to find another match. Good Luck.

I will repeat my argument here, since you have not actually dealt with it. I will certainly show in the process how the 1st century ecclesias of Asia Minor would have understood it, and I will do so by reference to the very letter sent to them.

puritan lad wrote:Here is the big clincher, though by all means not the last of the evidence.

Luke 21:20-24
“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

Revelation 11:1,2,8
"Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel stood, saying, “Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there. But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two months... And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified."

At this point, we are dealing with more than just a similarity of language between the Olivet Discourse and Revelation. We are dealing with identical themes, themes have we know have seen their historical fulfillment in 70 AD. Therefore, the burden of proof lies on you to show that there will be two great tribulations, and two occurances where the holy city (clearly earthly Jerusalem) will be trampled on by Gentiles for 42 months.

Firstly, neither of these two passages speak of a 'great tribulation'. They do share a common theme - tribulation on God's people - but there is nothing to indicate that they speak of the same event (exegeting from the common theme and common symbolism commits the logical fallacy of the undistributed middle).

Secondly, the contexts of these two passages are completely different. One is explicitly a warning of the destruction of Jerusalem to those who would experience the destruction of Jerusalem, whereas the other contains no reference to Israel or Jerusalem, and was sent to Christians who would not experience the destruction of Jerusalem.

Thirdly, you have already agreed with me that:

• Revelation takes symbols which in the Old Testament were used of Israel and the Jews, and applies them to the body of Christ and to the Christians

But here you take the symbols of the temple and the holy city in Revelation, and apply them not to the body of Christ and to the Christians, but to Israel and Jerusalem.

The fact is that the Revelation has already defined these terms for us. The holy city has been previously defined as the bride of Christ, the body of belivers:

Revelation 3:
12 The one who conquers I will make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will never depart from it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God (the new Jerusalem that comes down out of heaven from my God), and my new name as well.

Further proof of this is found later in the book:

Revelation 21:
2 And I saw the holy city—the new Jerusalem—descending out of heaven from God, made ready like a bride adorned for her husband.

9 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven final plagues came and spoke to me, saying, “Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb!”
10 So he took me away in the Spirit to a huge, majestic mountain and showed me the holy city, Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God.

Then there's the astonishing fact that you want to refer to 'the earthly Jerusalem' as both 'the holy city' and 'Sodom and Egypt'. It is not possible that the same city could be described in such completely opposing terms. This is noted very early by Paula and Eustochium (Letters of Jerome, Letter XLV, Paula and Eustochium to Marcella, paragraph 6, 386 AD).

The 'temple of God' likewise has been previously defined by Revelation as the body of believers:

Revelation 3:
12 The one who conquers I will make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will never depart from it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God (the new Jerusalem that comes down out of heaven from my God), and my new name as well.

Further proof of this is found later in the book:

Revelation 7:
15 For this reason they are before the throne of God, and they serve him day and night in his temple, and the one seated on the throne will shelter them.

See also Revelation 14:15-17; 15:5-6, 8; 16:1, 17; 21:22, in which the temple of God is described as a spiritual dwellingplace of God, not as the literal temple in Jerusalem.

Fortigurn wrote: According to the Olivet prophecy, the 'times of the Gentiles' start after AD 70 - at the point that Jerusalem is destroyed, and the Jews are led away captive into all nations. I believe that covers a lot more than 42 months.

Wrong. The trampling by Gentiles of Jerusalem lasted almost exactly 42 months.

Ok, let's look at the events as recorded by Luke:

Luke 21:
20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near.

The Roman armies are surrounding Jerusalem, and it's about to be destroyed (what date?).

Luke 21:
21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains. Those who are inside the city must depart. Those who are out in the country must not enter it,
22 because these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written.
23 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress on the earth and wrath against this people.

Get out now, because it's your last chance (what date?).

Luke 21:
24 They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led away as captives among all nations. Jerusalem will be trampled down by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

Jerusalem falls, and is destroyed, and the Jews are slaughtered. This is the end of the Jewish war, AD 70. The Jews are sold into slavery throughout the empire, and Jerusalem remains trampled down, until the times of the Gentiles are destroyed. What date do you put on these events? Are you telling me that none of this is AD 70 yet?

Then:

Luke 21:
25 “And there will be signs in the sun and moon and stars, and on the earth nations will be in distress, anxious over the roaring of the sea and the surging waves.
26 People will be fainting from fear and from the expectation of what is coming on the world, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
27 Then they will see the Son of Man arriving in a cloud with power and great glory.
28 But when these things begin to happen, stand up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.”

Note that this eschatological event occurs subsequent to the fall of Jerusalem, the slaughter of the Jews, their exile into the nations, and the end of the times of the Gentiles. According to the Praeterist position, this return of Christ occurs at the commencement of the final war against Jerusalem, AD 68-70 (depending on whose chronology you accept), but it most certainly does not take place subsequent to AD 70, because the whole argument of the Praeterist rests on Christ 'returning' to lead the armies of Rome in AD 68-70.

(Don't forget Luke 21:32 while you're at it).

Don't worry, I haven't.

Fortigurn wrote:the temple of God is described as a spiritual dwelling place of God, not as the literal temple in Jerusalem.

Do you believe that the “spiritual dwelling place of God” will be tread underfoot by the gentiles for forty-two months”?

I believe it was, most certainly. The 'Gentiles' here are false Christians.

Again, anyone can plainly see the relationship between Revelation and the Olivet Dsscourse. They are one and the same.

I need to see a lot more than you've given me.

* You alleged that the PHULAI THS GHS of chapter 1 refers to the tribes of Israel (I have proved that it is not used of the tribes of Israel). You attempted to claim from John's reference to 'tribulation', that there was a widespread persecution of Christians in Asia Minor by Jews (I have demonstrated that this is reading far too much into the text). That was all you gave me from chapter 1.

* You alleged that the letters to the seven ecclesias demonstrate that the Christians in Asia Minor were being persecuted by Nero, and by Jews who had received authority to do so from the Romans. I have demonstrated that only two of the ecclesias are spoken of as receiving persecution, that the 'great tribulation' they face is spoken of as still future, and that there is nothing to indicate that they were being persecuted by Jews who had received authority to do so from the Romans (false Christians are the number one problem in the letters to the seven ecclesias).

* You didn't give me anything from chapters 4 or 5.

* You made an argument that Revelation 6 is a reiteration of the warning of the destruction of Jerusalem. You failed to demonstrate how this was supposed to be relevant to the ecclesias in Asia Minor. You declared that Jerusalem was in some way of great importance to them, but failed to proivde any historical evidence to support this.

You declared that the destruction of Jerusalem was the avenging of the martyrs of Asia Minor, but I pointed out that this makes no sense since you had failed to prove that the martyrs of Asia Minor were killed by Jews at all, and that they certainly weren't killed by Jews in Jerusalem, hundreds of miles away. You also failed to demonstrate how the destruction of Jerusalem was in any way the redemption of the Christians in Asia Minor from their persecution (especially since persecution by the Romans only intensified after this date).

* Your argument from Revelation 6 was predicated on the logical fallacy of the undistributed middle, and you failed to harmonise the symbolism used in Revelation 6 with that used in the Olivet prophecy (in particular, you attempted to interpret apocalpytic language as partly literal and partly non-literal, which is a serious exegetical error). Nor did you even deal with all of the language in Revelation 6 (I'm still left wondering what the 'fourth part of the earth' is).

* You have alleged that Jerusalem is the city on seven hills, and claimed that 1st century Jerusalem was built on seven hills. You have provided no historical evidence to support this claim. In return, I have demonstrated that not only was 'the city on seven hills' known by Romans, Greeks, and Jews to be the city of Rome (during at least the entire 1st century), but that Josephus explicitly identifies 1st century Jerusalem as being on two hills, not seven.

That's all I've had so far. I need a lot more than this. We still have at least another 13 chapters to go.

Well says you for a start. You claimed that the 'tribulation' being experienced by John and the ecclesias in Asia Minor was persecution by the Romans and Jews. I pointed out that the letter to Philadephia speaks of a tribulation which would come upon the OIKOUMENH, and which was yet future - so it couldn't be any current persecution by the Romans and Jews.

Why not? It was “future” to the audience in Philadelphia in 66 AD, but not to us in 2005. The hour of trial was “about to” (mello) come upon the whole earth. No one would take “about to” to mean 2,000 years in the future. Besides, if that were the case, than why would the first Century church have to be delivered from it?

I have been through this before. The 'great tribulation' in the Olivet prophecy is confined to Israel and the Jews. It does not refer at all to a tribulation on the entire OIKOUMENH. Whatever tribulation is spoken of in the letter to Philadelphia, it cannot be the 'great tribulation' of the Olivet propheccy (note also that no 'great tribulation' is referred to in Revelation 11).

What about the “great tribulation” in Rev. 7:14? Again, How many “great tribulations” are there?

Then there's the astonishing fact that you want to refer to 'the earthly Jerusalem' as both 'the holy city' and 'Sodom and Egypt'.

Just like Isaiah referred to the same “faithful city” as a “harlot” (Isaiah 1:21) as well as “Sodom” (Isaiah 1:9-10).

Jerusalem falls, and is destroyed, and the Jews are slaughtered. This is the end of the Jewish war, AD 70. The Jews are sold into slavery throughout the empire, and Jerusalem remains trampled down, until the times of the Gentiles are destroyed. What date do you put on these events? Are you telling me that none of this is AD 70 yet?

You've really missed the boat on this one. I agree that it was ALL fulfilled in 70 AD. So was Rev. 11:1-2. That's the point. They speak of the same event, the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Where do you get this from? “until the times of the Gentiles are destroyed”. I missed that in my Bible.

Note that this eschatological event occurs subsequent to the fall of Jerusalem, the slaughter of the Jews, their exile into the nations, and the end of the times of the Gentiles. According to the Praeterist position, this return of Christ occurs at the commencement of the final war against Jerusalem, AD 68-70 (depending on whose chronology you accept), but it most certainly does not take place subsequent to AD 70, because the whole argument of the Praeterist rests on Christ 'returning' to lead the armies of Rome in AD 68-70.

Matthew 21:40-45
“Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?” They said to Him, “He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons.” Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:

' The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone.
This was the LORD's doing,
And it is marvelous in our eyes'?

“Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.” Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking of them.”

I believe it was, most certainly. The 'Gentiles' here are false Christians.

Says who? So the “holy city”, “temple”, “great city where our Lord was crucified”, “gentiles”, and “42 months” are all just a coincidence? And this coincidence just happens to follow the exact events of 70 AD?

I've conceded that the 7 hills are Rome (I've never suggested anything else). So, what was Rome, the beast or the harlot? It can't be both.

I'm updating the document that I uploaded earlier. In the meantime, let me throw in this connection.

Revelation 8:8
"Then the second angel sounded: And something like a great mountain burning with fire was thrown into the sea, and a third of the sea became blood. And a third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed."

Matthew 24:32
“Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near."

Matthew 21:18-21
"Now in the morning, as He returned to the city, He was hungry. And seeing a fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it but leaves, and said to it, “Let no fruit grow on you ever again.” Immediately the fig tree withered away. And when the disciples saw it, they marveled, saying, “How did the fig tree wither away so soon?” So Jesus answered and said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but also if you say to this mountain, 'Be removed and be cast into the sea,' it will be done."

The Fig Tree was "this mountain" (Jerusalem), which was thrown into the sea (the abyss, where the beast came out of).

puritan lad wrote:

Well says you for a start. You claimed that the 'tribulation' being experienced by John and the ecclesias in Asia Minor was persecution by the Romans and Jews. I pointed out that the letter to Philadephia speaks of a tribulation which would come upon the OIKOUMENH, and which was yet future - so it couldn't be any current persecution by the Romans and Jews.

Why not?

It couldn't be a persecution which they were currently experiencing, because it is described as being in their future.

It was “future” to the audience in Philadelphia in 66 AD, but not to us in 2005. The hour of trial was “about to” (mello) come upon the whole earth. No one would take “about to” to mean 2,000 years in the future. Besides, if that were the case, than why would the first Century church have to be delivered from it?

I agree entirely. Remember, I'm not a Futurist, so I am not arguing that this 'tribulation' has yet to take place. I believe it already took place.

I have been through this before. The 'great tribulation' in the Olivet prophecy is confined to Israel and the Jews. It does not refer at all to a tribulation on the entire OIKOUMENH. Whatever tribulation is spoken of in the letter to Philadelphia, it cannot be the 'great tribulation' of the Olivet propheccy (note also that no 'great tribulation' is referred to in Revelation 11).

What about the “great tribulation” in Rev. 7:14?

What about it?

Again, How many “great tribulations” are there?

Well there's one in the Olivet prophecy, and one in Revelation. How many 'day of the Lord' passages can you find in the Old Testament? How many days of the Lord are there?

Then there's the astonishing fact that you want to refer to 'the earthly Jerusalem' as both 'the holy city' and 'Sodom and Egypt'.

Just like Isaiah referred to the same “faithful city” as a “harlot” (Isaiah 1:21) as well as “Sodom” (Isaiah 1:9-10).

Isaiah referred to Israel as a harlot and Sodom when they had apostasised. He did not call them both holy and a harlot and Sodom when they had apostasised. That's the issue here.

Jerusalem falls, and is destroyed, and the Jews are slaughtered. This is the end of the Jewish war, AD 70. The Jews are sold into slavery throughout the empire, and Jerusalem remains trampled down, until the times of the Gentiles are destroyed. What date do you put on these events? Are you telling me that none of this is AD 70 yet?

You've really missed the boat on this one. I agree that it was ALL fulfilled in 70 AD.

I'm failing to see how I missed the boat. I need to see how Christ's return (which does not take place until verse 27), actually precedes the events described in verses 20-24.

So was Rev. 11:1-2. That's the point. They speak of the same event, the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

I need you to prove this rather than simply appealing to a similarity of language.

Where do you get this from? “until the times of the Gentiles are destroyed”. I missed that in my Bible.

I meant to write 'fulfilled', my fault. It was 12:13 am, after all.

Note that this eschatological event occurs subsequent to the fall of Jerusalem, the slaughter of the Jews, their exile into the nations, and the end of the times of the Gentiles. According to the Praeterist position, this return of Christ occurs at the commencement of the final war against Jerusalem, AD 68-70 (depending on whose chronology you accept), but it most certainly does not take place subsequent to AD 70, because the whole argument of the Praeterist rests on Christ 'returning' to lead the armies of Rome in AD 68-70.

Matthew 21:40-45
“Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?” They said to Him, “He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons.” Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:

' The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone.
This was the LORD's doing,
And it is marvelous in our eyes'?

“Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.” Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking of them.”

I'm sorry, but exactly what are you proving here? You haven't dealt with the chronology.

I believe it was, most certainly. The 'Gentiles' here are false Christians.

Says who?

I refer you to the clear definitions of 'holy city' and 'temple of God' already given in Revelation 3.

So the “holy city”, “temple”, “great city where our Lord was crucified”, “gentiles”, and “42 months” are all just a coincidence? And this coincidence just happens to follow the exact events of 70 AD?

No it is not a coincidence. The Revelation draws on imagery which was previously applied to the Jews and Israel, and applies it to the Christians and the body of Christ. I have said this before, and you agreed with it. But you do not appear to wish to apply it consistently in Revelation.

As I have also demonstrated, the description of events in Revelation is hardly an exact description of the events in the Olivet prophecy (note for example that in Revelation 11 it is only the outer court of the temple which is trampled - in AD 70 the entire temple was wiped off the face of the earth).

I've conceded that the 7 hills are Rome (I've never suggested anything else).

Thank you. I thought you had argued that Jerusalem sat on seven hills.

So, what was Rome, the beast or the harlot? It can't be both.

Rome the city is the harlot (you can see that it's called 'the city'). Rome the empire is the beast (but you already agree with that).

puritan lad wrote:I'm updating the document that I uploaded earlier. In the meantime, let me throw in this connection.

Revelation 8:8
"Then the second angel sounded: And something like a great mountain burning with fire was thrown into the sea, and a third of the sea became blood. And a third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed."

Matthew 24:32
“Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near."

Matthew 21:18-21
"Now in the morning, as He returned to the city, He was hungry. And seeing a fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it but leaves, and said to it, “Let no fruit grow on you ever again.” Immediately the fig tree withered away. And when the disciples saw it, they marveled, saying, “How did the fig tree wither away so soon?” So Jesus answered and said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but also if you say to this mountain, 'Be removed and be cast into the sea,' it will be done."

The Fig Tree was "this mountain" (Jerusalem), which was thrown into the sea (the abyss, where the beast came out of).

I find this a very tenuous connection.

Firstly, the fig tree in Matthew 24:32 is used as a simile, not a metaphor. It is used as a simile for the manner in which 'these things' can be discerned as they occur, not as a metaphor for Israel.

Secondly, there is no obvious connection between the great mountain cast into the sea in Revelation, and the mountain in Christ's words regarding faith. Christ is saying - very clearly - if you have faith like this, you can do this.

Thirdly, you fail to explain the destruction imagery in the passage in Revelation. How does throwing 'Jerusalem' into 'the abyss' cause this:

a third of the sea became blood. And a third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed.

Fortigurn wrote:Well there's one in the Olivet prophecy, and one in Revelation. How many 'day of the Lord' passages can you find in the Old Testament? How many days of the Lord are there?

So you're conceding a belief in two “great tribulations”. The Bible only mentions “the great tribulation”. Nowhere do you find evidence for a second one.

Fortigurn wrote:Isaiah referred to Israel as a harlot and Sodom when they had apostasised. He did not call them both holy and a harlot and Sodom when they had apostasised. That's the issue here.

But he did refer to it as “faithful”. What other city in the Scripture is referred to as “holy”? What other city is called “Sodom”? From a covenantal standpoint, being “holy” (set apart) is only a ceremonial cleansing. (An unbeliever can be “holy” just by being married to a believer — 1 Cor. 7:14).

Fortigurn wrote:I'm failing to see how I missed the boat. I need to see how Christ's return (which does not take place until verse 27), actually precedes the events described in verses 20-24.

The prophecy is NOT about the Second Coming. It is about His “coming in the clouds”, ie. Judgment, something that happens quite frequently (See Isaiah 19:1, Nahum 1:3). We have Christ's own words that He would “come” in judgment of the Pharisees (See Matthew 21:40-45). It would happen before the Apostles finished preaching in the cities of Israel (Matthew 10:23), while some of them would still be alive (Matthew 16:28). The high priest would live to see it (Matthew 26:64). All of those events would happen within the Apostle's Generation (Matthew 24:34). Your job is to show how these events are still future despite these clear statements.

Fortigurn wrote:Thank you. I thought you had argued that Jerusalem sat on seven hills.

I did. But I also clearly stated that this was not the reference here. The reference was Jerusalem riding Rome's authority. It was Jerusalem alone who was responsible for “all the righteous blood shed upon the earth”, not Rome. It is Jerusalem that the Bible refers to over and over again as a harlot, not Rome.

So down to the basics. I hold that Revelation and the Olivet Discourse are one and the same for a variety of reasons.

1.) Almost identical apocalyptic language, which we've been over.
2.) The same time frame references.
3.) Identical themes, (great tribulation, holy city trampled, etc.)

You have already conceded that you believe in 2 “great tribulations”. You also have to believe in 2 holy city tramplings, 2 gathering of the elect, 2 mournings by the tribes of the earth, etc. You also have to believe in a 3rd Jewish temple and a return to animal sacrifices, which the Bible is silent about. You have to believe that the Roman Empire will exist at some future time. This is a necessity if you insist that Revelation and the Olivet Discourse are different. The problem, you have absolutely nothing to base any of this on.

puritan lad wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:Well there's one in the Olivet prophecy, and one in Revelation. How many 'day of the Lord' passages can you find in the Old Testament? How many days of the Lord are there?

So you're conceding a belief in two “great tribulations”. The Bible only mentions “the great tribulation”. Nowhere do you find evidence for a second one.

You're begging the question. There is a 'great tribulation' in the Olivet prophcey, and a 'great tribulation' in Revelation. You assume that these are the same event - the destruction of Jerusalem. This is a false assumption. The onus is on you to prove that the phrase 'the great tribulation' can only have one referent. I have already demonstrated that the phrase 'the day of the Lord' can have more than one referent.

In any case, the problem with your interpretation of Revelation 7 is that this would mean that the Christians who underwent the events of AD 70 are the only saints. How is this 'great tribulation' relevant to the Christians in Asia Minor, if it's the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70?

Furthermore, your position regarding the tribulation is still not clear.

You claimed that the 'tribulation' being experienced by John and the ecclesias in Asia Minor was persecution by the Romans and Jews. I pointed out that the letter to Philadephia speaks of a tribulation which would come upon the OIKOUMENH, and which was yet future - so it couldn't be any current persecution by the Romans and Jews.

You then claimed that this tribulation spoken of in the letter to Philadelphia was the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, from which you said they were assured they would be kept safe.

This immediately placed you in the position of saying that there was a 'tribulation' in Revelation 1 which was currently being experienced by the ecclesias in Asia Minor, and that there was a second tribulation which had not yet occurred, which would be the tribulation of the Olivet prophecy (from which Philadephia, you said, would be kept).

I responded that it didn't make any sense to tell Philadelphia that they would be kept from the tribulation of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, because they were nowhere near the place, and none of the other ecclesias in Asia Minor would be affected by it either.

You then suggested that this tribulation (which was still future to the Philadelphians), was part of the 'judgment on Rome' which took place when Nero died and civil war broke out.

This provided you with a 'tribulation' which you could argue would be experienced throughout the entire OIKOUMENH, but it also meant you were now arguing for two different tribulations, and it placed the onus of evidence on you to demonstrate that the civil war of AD 68-9 constituted a 'tribulation' which extended throughout the OIKOUMENH and which directly affected the Christians.

I don't think there's any dispute that even if John is speaking of a 'great tribulation' which was currently being experienced by the Christians, it is not the tribulation spoken of in the letter to Philadelphia. But neither of these are spoken of as a 'great tribulation' in any case.

The tribulation of John in Revelation 1 is clearly not the 'great tribulation', and the tribulation of which Philadelphia is warned is clearly not the 'great tribulation' (if the 'great tribulation' is the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70), so which tribulations are these?

Fortigurn wrote:Isaiah referred to Israel as a harlot and Sodom when they had apostasised. He did not call them both holy and a harlot and Sodom when they had apostasised. That's the issue here.

But he did refer to it as “faithful”.

No he didn't. He said it had been faithful in the past, but was now unfaithful:

Isaiah 1:
21 How tragic that the once faithful city has become a prostitute! She was once a center of justice, fairness resided in her, but now only murderers.

Isaiah does not call her faithful and a prostitute at the same time.

Again:

Isaiah 1:
26 I will reestablish honest judges as in former times, wise advisers as in earlier days. Then you will be called, 'The Just City, Faithful Town.'”

Nowhere does Isaiah call Jerusalem 'Sodom, the faithful city'. He does not describe her as 'Sodom', and 'faithful' as concurrent states. Yet you wish me to believe that Revelation calls Jerusalem 'Sodom and Egypt', concurrent with 'the holy city'?

What other city in the Scripture is referred to as “holy”?

The New Jerusalem, which comes down from heaven, which is the bride of Christ (Revelation 3:12; 212, 9, 10).

What other city is called “Sodom”?

Who cares?

From a covenantal standpoint, being “holy” (set apart) is only a ceremonial cleansing. (An unbeliever can be “holy” just by being married to a believer — 1 Cor. 7:14).

This isn't relevant, because we are not talking about a city which is 'ceremonially clean'. We're talking about a city which is ceremonially unclean, and a city which - as your theology states dogmatically - was utterly bereft of covenantal standing.

Fortigurn wrote:I'm failing to see how I missed the boat. I need to see how Christ's return (which does not take place until verse 27), actually precedes the events described in verses 20-24.

The prophecy is NOT about the Second Coming. It is about His “coming in the clouds”, ie. Judgment, something that happens quite frequently (See Isaiah 19:1, Nahum 1:3).

Yes I know that's what you think it is. That's precisely why I wrote what I did. I know you believe it's a 'coming in judgment' (as I wrote previously), not the 2nd advent. You're still missing the point - this 'coming in judgment' does not take place, according to the Olivet prophecy, until subsequent to the events of AD 70.

By the time Christ comes 'in judgment' in the Olivet prophecy, Jerusalem has been destroyed, the Jews have been led away captive into all nations, and the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. That is a major problem for the Praeterist chronology.

We have Christ's own words that He would “come” in judgment of the Pharisees (See Matthew 21:40-45). It would happen before the Apostles finished preaching in the cities of Israel (Matthew 10:23), while some of them would still be alive (Matthew 16:28). The high priest would live to see it (Matthew 26:64). All of those events would happen within the Apostle's Generation (Matthew 24:34). Your job is to show how these events are still future despite these clear statements.

The judgment of the Pharisees only requires their resurrection, not Christ's literal return in AD 70. This deals with Matthew 21:40-45 and 26:64 (don't forget that the Pharisees had to see others enter the Kingdom of God with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and themselves cast out). Furthermore, Matthew 16:28 is a reference to the Transfiguration. I'm happy with Matthew 10:23 and 24:34 being a reference to AD 70.

The reference was Jerusalem riding Rome's authority. It was Jerusalem alone who was responsible for “all the righteous blood shed upon the earth”, not Rome. It is Jerusalem that the Bible refers to over and over again as a harlot, not Rome.

Well there's still some question begging here, isn't there? I'm still waiting for the historical evidence that Jerusalem and the Jews were in control in the way you describe (you haven't provided any Scriptural evidence for them receiving authority from the Romans to persecute the Christians either).

So down to the basics. I hold that Revelation and the Olivet Discourse are one and the same for a variety of reasons.

1.) Almost identical apocalyptic language, which we've been over.

You've already acknowledged that the fallacy of the undistributed middle prevents you from using this as a determining factor.

2.) The same time frame references.

You've already acknowledged that Revelation contains events which would not come to pass soon.

3.) Identical themes, (great tribulation, holy city trampled, etc.)

You've already acknowledged that the fallacy of the undistributed middle prevents you from using this as a determining factor. Furthermore, the trampling of the holy city in Revelation cannot be the destruction of Jerusalem, for the reasons I have given (to which you have yet to reply).

You have already conceded that you believe in 2 “great tribulations”.

I have stated that this position is completely coherent, and demonstrated why.

You also have to believe in 2 holy city tramplings, 2 gathering of the elect, 2 mournings by the tribes of the earth, etc.

No I do not.

You also have to believe in a 3rd Jewish temple and a return to animal sacrifices, which the Bible is silent about.

No, I don't even have to do that (I'm open on the question of a future temple and sacrifices, but I don't believe that they would be established prior to the 2nd advent in any case).

You have to believe that the Roman Empire will exist at some future time.

...in some form.

This is a necessity if you insist that Revelation and the Olivet Discourse are different. The problem, you have absolutely nothing to base any of this on.

I have presented a great deal of argument for my case. To date, the largest part of my argument has been completely unaddressed by you.

* You alleged that the PHULAI THS GHS of chapter 1 refers to the tribes of Israel (I have proved that it is not used of the tribes of Israel). You attempted to claim from John's reference to 'tribulation', that there was a widespread persecution of Christians in Asia Minor by Jews (I have demonstrated that this is reading far too much into the text). That was all you gave me from chapter 1.

* You alleged that the letters to the seven ecclesias demonstrate that the Christians in Asia Minor were being persecuted by Nero, and by Jews who had received authority to do so from the Romans. I have demonstrated that only two of the ecclesias are spoken of as receiving persecution, that the 'great tribulation' they face is spoken of as still future, and that there is nothing to indicate that they were being persecuted by Jews who had received authority to do so from the Romans (false Christians are the number one problem in the letters to the seven ecclesias).

* You didn't give me anything from chapters 4 or 5.

* You made an argument that Revelation 6 is a reiteration of the warning of the destruction of Jerusalem. You failed to demonstrate how this was supposed to be relevant to the ecclesias in Asia Minor. You declared that Jerusalem was in some way of great importance to them, but failed to proivde any historical evidence to support this.

You declared that the destruction of Jerusalem was the avenging of the martyrs of Asia Minor, but I pointed out that this makes no sense since you had failed to prove that the martyrs of Asia Minor were killed by Jews at all, and that they certainly weren't killed by Jews in Jerusalem, hundreds of miles away. You also failed to demonstrate how the destruction of Jerusalem was in any way the redemption of the Christians in Asia Minor from their persecution (especially since persecution by the Romans only intensified after this date).

* Your argument from Revelation 6 was predicated on the logical fallacy of the undistributed middle, and you failed to harmonise the symbolism used in Revelation 6 with that used in the Olivet prophecy (in particular, you attempted to interpret apocalpytic language as partly literal and partly non-literal, which is a serious exegetical error). Nor did you even deal with all of the language in Revelation 6 (I'm still left wondering what the 'fourth part of the earth' is).

That's all I've had so far. I need a lot more than this. We still have at least another 13 chapters to go.

Then there's Revelation 11, which you absolutely must nail down. I shall repost my argument regarding the 'holy city' and 'temple of God'. You cannot avoid it.

This argument has to be dealt with.

puritan lad wrote:Here is the big clincher, though by all means not the last of the evidence.

Luke 21:20-24
“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

Revelation 11:1,2,8
"Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel stood, saying, “Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there. But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two months... And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified."

At this point, we are dealing with more than just a similarity of language between the Olivet Discourse and Revelation. We are dealing with identical themes, themes have we know have seen their historical fulfillment in 70 AD. Therefore, the burden of proof lies on you to show that there will be two great tribulations, and two occurances where the holy city (clearly earthly Jerusalem) will be trampled on by Gentiles for 42 months.

Firstly, neither of these two passages speak of a 'great tribulation'. They do share a common theme - tribulation on God's people - but there is nothing to indicate that they speak of the same event (exegeting from the common theme and common symbolism commits the logical fallacy of the undistributed middle).

Secondly, the contexts of these two passages are completely different. One is explicitly a warning of the destruction of Jerusalem to those who would experience the destruction of Jerusalem, whereas the other contains no reference to Israel or Jerusalem, and was sent to Christians who would not experience the destruction of Jerusalem.

Thirdly, you have already agreed with me that:

• Revelation takes symbols which in the Old Testament were used of Israel and the Jews, and applies them to the body of Christ and to the Christians

But here you take the symbols of the temple and the holy city in Revelation, and apply them not to the body of Christ and to the Christians, but to Israel and Jerusalem.

The fact is that the Revelation has already defined these terms for us. The holy city has been previously defined as the bride of Christ, the body of belivers:

Revelation 3:
12 The one who conquers I will make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will never depart from it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God (the new Jerusalem that comes down out of heaven from my God), and my new name as well.

Further proof of this is found later in the book:

Revelation 21:
2 And I saw the holy city—the new Jerusalem—descending out of heaven from God, made ready like a bride adorned for her husband.

9 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven final plagues came and spoke to me, saying, “Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb!”
10 So he took me away in the Spirit to a huge, majestic mountain and showed me the holy city, Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God.

Then there's the astonishing fact that you want to refer to 'the earthly Jerusalem' as both 'the holy city' and 'Sodom and Egypt'. It is not possible that the same city could be described in such completely opposing terms. This is noted very early by Paula and Eustochium (Letters of Jerome, Letter XLV, Paula and Eustochium to Marcella, paragraph 6, 386 AD).

The 'temple of God' likewise has been previously defined by Revelation as the body of believers:

Revelation 3:
12 The one who conquers I will make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will never depart from it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God (the new Jerusalem that comes down out of heaven from my God), and my new name as well.

Further proof of this is found later in the book:

Revelation 7:
15 For this reason they are before the throne of God, and they serve him day and night in his temple, and the one seated on the throne will shelter them.

See also Revelation 14:15-17; 15:5-6, 8; 16:1, 17; 21:22, in which the temple of God is described as a spiritual dwellingplace of God, not as the literal temple in Jerusalem.

To date, you have failed to address this argument at all. In particuarly, you have avoided completely the definitions of 'the holy city' and 'the temple of God' which Revelation itself establishes. This is a serious exegetical flaw.

Fortigurn wrote:no reference to Israel or Jerusalem

You are in denial and are trying to over-spiritualize Rev. 11. Anyone who can read can clearly see that Rev. 11:1,2,8 clearly refer to earthly Jerusalem, and I've clearly made this case. Also, are you really willing to insult the bride of Christ by referring to her as "Sodom and Egypt"?

In any case, I'll post by outline of Revelation tomorrow (the whole book) and let it stand on it's merit. (This took a while).

God Bless,

Puritan Lad

puritan lad wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:no reference to Israel or Jerusalem

You are in denial and are trying to over-spiritualize Rev. 11. Anyone who can read can clearly see that Rev. 11:1,2,8 clearly refer to earthly Jerusalem, and I've clearly made this case.

I'm afraid this is just assertion. You pay no attention to the fact that Paul was already referring to the body of Christians (and to individual Christians), as the 'temple of God', and even less attention to the fact that Revelation itself clearly defnies 'the temple of God' and 'the city of God'.

I find it ironic that a Praeterist is accusing a Historicist of 'over-spiritualizing'. You have yet to explain why you abandon Revelation's definition and consistent use of the term 'temple of God' to describe God's spiritual dwellingplace, and Revelation's definition and consistent use of the term 'city of God' to describe the body of Christians.

This must be dealt with.

Also, are you really willing to insult the bride of Christ by referring to her as "Sodom and Egypt"?

I don't hold that the city called 'Sodom and Egypt' is the bride of Christ.

Here it is, Chapter by Chapter, along with some important extras. Hope it isn't too big (253k). Enjoy.

Thanks, that's very useful. The document on the date isn't really relevant to Historicists (since Historicism doesn't require that Revelation be written at any particular date), and nor is the document against Dispensational Futurism (Historicism is quite different).

The 'introduction to Revelation' doesn't really contain any arguments (it's just a preamble), so the one remaining document to critique is the outline, which is sufficiently lacking in detail to be dealt with reasonably promptly (Praeterist expositions are usually fairly light on detail, since they struggle to find relevant historical witnesses to their exposition).

Praeterist expositions of Revelation are usually pretty repetitions - 'In this chapter, we have several descriptions of the destruction of Jerusalem. In the next chapter, we have several descriptions of the destruction of Jerusalem. In the following chapter, more of the same. Moving on to the next chapter, we find... well, basically Jesus is finding as many ways of saying the same thing in different words as possible'.

It's rather bizarre that Christ took about 20 verses in the Olivet prophecy to foretell the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile of the Jews, in largely unsymbolic language, and then decided later to blow the entire thing up into a couple of hundred verses laden with symbolic language saying the same thing about 5 times over.

Fortigurn wrote: It's rather bizarre that Christ took about 20 verses in the Olivet prophecy to foretell the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile of the Jews, in largely unsymbolic language, and then decided later to blow the entire thing up into a couple of hundred verses laden with symbolic language saying the same thing about 5 times over.

There are reasons for this. First is the fact that the Book of Revelation is a Covenant Document, as I have outlined the five parts of the Suzrain-Vassal Treaty. This alone makes the length necessary.

The Second is the point of reference. While Jesus is simply telling His disciples on the Mount of Olives what to expect within that generation, in Revelation He brings John to the throne room to show him the wrath that God was about to pour out on Jerusalem.

The Third, Revelation contains details that aren't mentioned in the Olivet Prophecy, such as the Beast and the Roman Civil War.

Fourthly, Revelation, in all likelihood, contains a series of letters to the Seven Churches, which were read aloud in worship to "exhort, edify, and comfort" them.

I feel that I've exhausted the issue here, and it appears that there are more important items to be dealt with shortly.

God Bless,

PL