Is the Great Tribulation Past or Future? - Battle Royale III - Dee Dee vs. Jerry

Not open for further replies.

Nathon Detroit



That is the end of round 9.

One more post each!

And Dee Dee is on the clock!

Dee Dee Warren

How about some fire Scarecrow?? (straw men galore)

How about some fire Scarecrow?? (straw men galore)

I am beginning to think that Jerry’s feet must be the tastiest things on the planet with the way he keeps inserting them into his mouth. But then again, we have all seen what he has continually stepped in, so maybe not. :shocked: In his last post Jerry has outrageously misrepresented my position, either from sheer ignorance of what he is arguing against or as an outright falsehood. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, it would be nice if he actually understood what it is that he is attempting to rebut. So, in this episode of “As the Straw Man Burns,” Jerry said (in relation to my rebuttal that the resurrection was NOT to be associated with the “end of the age” in Matthew 24 and “the coming of Christ in His Kingdom” in Matthew 16:27-28):

All Dee Dee can say about this is to wonder why I think it is incredible that Paul could exhort the early Christians to wait for the resurrection. [emphasis mine]

Really?? That is ALL I said?? Did you eat some bad pork?? I spent two and half pages on this issue, specifically dealing with issues of chronology which you have rather doggedly dodged. :nono: The fatal chronology issues I raised remain unrefuted.

Dee Dee denies that these verses speak of the Lord Jesus actually returning to earth. She says He never leaves heaven. – [emphasis mine]

NEVER?? That statement is inexcusable. It is correct that I do not believe that Matthew 10:23 has anything to do with Christ’s Final Advent (since Jesus’ words don’t allow for that), but Jerry knows full well that I most certainly do believe that Acts 1:11 is a future bodily return in our future. This has been explained to him countless times in past encounters I have had with him.

Now Jerry is not content to sell just the Futurist Farm in his quest to prove me wrong at any cost, he also sells inerrancy down the river by saying:

There can also be no doubt that Paul expected that some of those living in his day would still be alive to see the Lord’s return [and by that Jerry means the resurrection] - bracketed comments mine

Really?? :confused: Well then Paul was WRONG and taught ERROR!!! Nonsense. I demonstrated thoroughly the Apostle Paul’s chronology of the resurrection, and wait…... what is that I hear??? Oh, just more crickets. The doctrine of “imminence” is manufactured out of the same cloth as the Emperor’s New Clothes... it doesn’t exist. There WAS a great eschatological event on the horizon for the first century Christians, and as I demonstrated it was NOT the resurrection. The time texts do not say: “might be” near, “could be” shortly, “act as if it is” at hand, “always” soon - they say near, shortly, at hand, and soon, and “some standing here will not taste death...” and the equivalent phrase (as I thoroughly proved) “this generation will not pass away...” Why is Jerry so scared of what these didactic timing passages actually say??

Jerry asks (again proving that he has no idea what he is even debating against):

Why would Paul exhort the Christians to be expecting the Lord arrive at any moment if He could not possibly arrive until AFTER THE MILLENNIUM.

Sigh. There was a “coming” of Christ that was rapidly approaching the first century audience... whose posts have you been reading Jerry? It is the resurrection which I clearly showed will close the Millennium, and big surprise, Jerry did not deal with it. Jerry simply assumes that Paul would not teach believers to be “waiting” for something that was a long way off. The word that Jerry has seized upon (apekdechomai) does not by NECESSITY mean something that must be close. As I pointed out, Abraham waited for the “New Jerusalem,” which did not come until the first century (Hebrews 11:10). Did he stop waiting once he died? Jerry correctly points out that I should have qualified my statement about the word in that text, it is the same Greek ROOT word (ekdochomai versus apekdochomai). Is Jerry claiming that the preposition “apo” so totally changes the meaning such that my example is irrelevant?? I think not. No, the meaning is simply to be patiently and diligently waiting... patience implies time (Thayer transliterates it into English as “wait it out”), and the example of Abraham is once again instructive. Hebrews 6:15 tells us that Abraham, “having patiently endured obtained the promise”. What promise? The promise of his descendants multiplied as the sand of the seashore (Hebrews 11:12), which he patiently “waited” for long after he died.

Jerry claims that Psalm 110 does not teach that Christ’s throne is in Heaven. Poppycock. The location is at the right hand of the Father which the NT clearly teaches is a Heavenly position in which Christ will remain until His enemies are vanquished. 1 Corinthians 15:24-25 clearly teaches that the LAST enemy to be vanquished is death at the resurrection/rapture at which time the Messianic reign of Christ is consummated and delivered up to the Father. This was already explained and defended in full in my previous post, and of course promptly ignored by Jerry. He also says that Daniel 7:9-14 does not teach that the Christ’s throne and reign are in/from Heaven. Hogwash. The scene is Heaven, the coming is “up”, and the “thrones” (how many does the Father need?) are in Heaven (7:9) which again is in harmony with Psalm 110 in which the Father tells the Son to be seated at His right hand and to rule in the midst of His foes. What do I hear?? Drat, it’s those crickets again.

Jerry’s OT evidences are.... well, embarrassing for him. For example, Jerry brings up Ezekiel 48:35 and the designation, “The Lord is There.” Does that require a physical presence?? If so, does Jesus physically appear where two or more are gathered together in His Name (Matthew 18:20)?? Benny Hinn seems to think it is likely. In Jeremiah 3:17 (and Zechariah 14:17), the text does not say that Christ’s throne will be in Jerusalem. Besides begging the question of the identity of Jerusalem (see Hebrews 12:22 and Galatians 4:25), the text says that Jerusalem will be “called” the “Throne of the Lord” which is then equated with the “Name of the Lord.” At the risk of being irreverent, has Jesus gotten so large that He needs to sit on a whole city as His throne?? Psalm 103:19 teaches that the Lord has established His throne in Heaven (and this throne is eternal – Hebrews 1:8) . In Isaiah 66:1 and Acts 7:49 the Lord derides any idea that a physical space on Earth is appropriate for Him to dwell as the earth is but His footstool. Lastly Jerry is once again befuddled by Biblical imagery (i.e. God’s throne speaks of His majesty and judgment and presence), so I ask, in the very same book (Jeremiah), when God judged Elam (Jeremiah 49:38), the text says that He set His throne in Elam – Did He temporarily move it from Heaven??

Now back to the Kingdom parables. Jerry gets really excited because Jesus says that the field is “world” (Greek – cosmos). The entire context of the Book of Matthew is impending and rapidly approaching judgment upon the apostate Jews, and the kingdom parables cannot be wrested out of that context. It is speaking of the wresting of the kingdom away from the apostates and giving it to a nation bearing the fruits thereof (Matthew 21:43). This specific parable speaks of the “sons of the wicked one,” whom Jesus had already specifically identified as the Jewish apostates (John 8:44) who thought they were the “sons of the kingdom.” The fact that the word “world” there does not absolutely HAVE to mean the entire globe. For example, Paul told the Romans that their faith was spoken of throughout the whole world (Greek- cosmos) (Romans 1:8). I doubt that the Aborigines had any clue about the faith of the Romans. And the obvious parallel here is Jesus’ comments in Matthew 24:14, “And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world (different Greek word - oikoumene) as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.” Jesus thus tells us what He means by cosmos, by using a different word for the scope of the message prior to the end of the age, a word that simply means “the inhabited earth” or more specifically in common NT usage, “the Roman Empire.” Now was this accomplished before 70AD? Absolutely.

Colossians 1:5-6 …because of the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, of which you heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel, which has come to you, as it has also in all the world, and is bringing forth fruit, as it is also among you since the day you heard and knew the grace of God in truth.

Colossians 1:23 …if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.

Romans 16:25-26 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began but now made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith.

Now Jerry is claiming that once Jesus does the purge of all evil people, the righteous that remain will eventually spawn children that will be deceived by satan near the end of the Millennium. Harrumph. Isaiah does not speak of accursed people merely living near “the end” of the Millennium, he speaks of them simply as a matter of course being mixed with the righteous. But Jerry missed the most fatal flaw, and that is that natural people still die, but Paul teaches that death is the LAST enemy which is DESTROYED when He returns to resurrect His saints (i.e. the rapture). It is impossible for any righteous people to die AFTER that point, and for there to be any enemies of Christ remaining (such as satan).

Lastly, Jerry dubs Thayer as “my” Greek expert. No, he is simply a highly reputable Greek expert that I have consulted and do not believe is infallible, in fact, considering that Thayer was an avowed Unitarian, there are many things that I would be disagree with him on. So with regards to the two words that Jerry is bringing up (parousia and erchomai), I would simply disagree (in part) with Thayer’s assessment that these words in Matthew 24:3, 24:27 and 24:30 refer to “the future visible return of Jesus the Messiah to raise the dead, hold the last judgment, and set up formally and gloriously the kingdom of God.” You see, Jerry was that so hard?? Rather than selectively quoting Thayer to try and make him appear to agree with me as you did with “genea,” I simply say he was wrong, and I have built a thorough exegetical case to prove it. There is nothing inherent in those words to support Thayer’s position – he is reading his theology into the text. I say that I would disagree in “part” because nothing about the judgment-coming of Christ was invisible, it was terrifyingly visible and horrible. Jerry would even disagree with Thayer here as Jerry believes that the last judgment does not occur until AFTER the Millennium.

And the discerning reader will notice something very interesting here…. Thayer has already unequivocally said that the time frame reference for this “coming” was in the first century, despite his belief that the “coming” must mean the “the future visible return of Jesus the Messiah to raise the dead, hold the last judgment, and set up formally and gloriously the kingdom of God.” That lends a lot of weight to his statement on “genea,” that is that the Greek and contextual case is so strong that he must be honest with the text to admit that Jesus clearly said this was a first century event, even though in his own theology it did not come to pass. Thus, Thayer does not help Jerry here but merely adds more ammunition to the force of “this generation.” And the textual case for “this generation” is much, much stronger. There is NO place in the NT where “this generation” means anything OTHER than the first century audience. NONE. I have totally dismantled Jerry’s assertions with Matthew 23:36. However, the words “parousia and erchomai” are not nearly so specialized and the NT uses them interchangeably (only Matthew utilizes the term “parousia” in the Discourse). Erchomai was used of a nonphysical “coming” of Christ in John 14:23 and Revelation 3:20, and parousia is used in 2 Peter 3:12 not with regards to the “person” of Christ at all but to the impersonal term of the “Day of the Lord.” Additionally, parousia has a history in Greek literature of being used to describe “the revelation of the power of divinity” and was used of the “presence of God” by Josephus multiples times (BAG). Again, I find it very strong that despite the obvious futuristic biases of the translators of the NT (and of Thayer) that they find the cases for the very clear time words so compelling that they translate them in a way that makes it clear that the Discourse and several related passages are about first century events.

Although this debate was about the timing of the Great Tribulation (primarily focusing on the Olivet Discourse) Jerry(see here) has repeatedly refused to address fatal objections to his positions. I am not harping on some of the minor points here (like whether or not Armageddon will be fought on horseback with wooden javelins – chuckle), but the ones, that if true, absolutely prove him wrong. Here are SOME of those major questions/challenges:

In Daniel 9:25, Daniel was instructed to understand the 70 weeks prophecy, so how would Daniel have any idea without any textual clue whatsoever that the destruction of the city and temple just prophesied to be rebuilt would be skipped over and omitted, and the city and the Temple would be rebuilt again (without any mention in the text whatsoever of this event) and it is THAT future city and Temple that are referenced as being destroyed? Similarly would the disciples have had any clue that Jesus was not primarily referring to the Temple that He was pointing at and standing in front of when prophesying its destruction (even referencing the very stones), but that His prophecy primarily dealt with some future Temple built of some other stones?

What textual warrant (not doctrinal presupposition) is there for interpreting Luke 21:20-24 and Matthew 24:15-18 to be speaking of different events in light of the compelling evidence I presented to the contrary?

Jerry has conceded that Luke 21:20-24 is a direct prophesy of the events of 70AD, but Luke 21:31 makes it clear that ALL the events prophesied (verses 5-30) would happen in relatively short succession as a sign of the coming of the Kingdom so….. how in the world can that be stretched out to millennia since, using Jerry’s wooden hermeneutic, it would be impossible for some future generation of Jews to “see” the destruction of the Temple and the city in 70AD?

How can Jerry get around the absolute fact that his view lays the guilt of all the murders of all the prophets and Christian martyrs at the feet of Jews of all time (which lays waste also to his attempts to make the “days of vengeance” of Luke 21:22 refer to a different event than Matthew 24:15-18…. wouldn’t God take vengeance for this accumulated guilt on today’s Jews??)??

How does Jerry explain the inanities of Jesus prophesying that certain people would not die within a week and that the Jewish race will still exist until all the things prophesied about the Jewish race come to pass? (i.e. wherever you go, there you are)

How does Jerry explain the reference to rewards and angels in his explaining away of Matthew 16:27-28 as the Transfiguration?? Why must Jerry add words to the text of Matthew 16:28 which says that there are some standing there who will not taste death until they see Son of Man coming in His Kingdom… NOT see a shadow of the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom… NOT see a foretaste of the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom (as also demonstrated by the parallel with Luke 21:31-32)??

How can Jerry consistently maintain that the “you” in Matthew 23 and 24 is referring to the Jewish race when at one time it is the “you” that are beating people up in the synagogues, and just verses later it is the “you” that are the ones getting beaten up?? Why would the whole modern Jewish race be flogged in the synagogues?? He has yet to consistently explain the “you” in the Discourse and the shift in the text from “you” to “they” in several embarrassing places (Luke 21:27, Matthew 24:30, Mark 13:26).

Why does Jerry feel the need to qualify all of the timing verses to mean that certain events “could” happen at any moment when the text clearly and without qualification says that they are “near,” “at hand,” “soon” etc…. (see also the incredibly damaging comparison of Revelation 1:3 and 22:10 with Daniel 8:26)??

How does Jerry force Daniel 7:9-14 and 1 Corinthians 15:20-56 to be speaking of the same event when in one the Kingdom is given to the Son and in the other the Son delivers the completed Kingdom to the Father after all of His enemies have been destroyed with the LAST enemy being death?? How can there be death and satanic activity in the Millennium when these things have been definitively destroyed at the rapture??

What rational reason is there (this is not the OJ Simpson jury) whatsoever why the disciples would not have interpreted Jesus’ cosmic imagery in the same way that it was used in numerous OT judgment passages, especially since Jesus was directly quoting Isaiah 13:10, an event in which the universe did not literally collapse? And if this language is to be taken in such a wooden sense, how could every star fall to the earth and the sky be rolled up like a scroll before the 144,000 are sealed (Revelation 6:12)?

How could one escape a worldwide conflagration by merely running to the mountains (Matthew 24:16; Mark 13:14; Luke 21:21)?

How can Jerry insist that Christ returns in the exact same way for Christians that He left when Jerry believes that He never even touches ground in the rapture?? If Jerry insists that he means when Christ returns for the Jews, then how come Revelation 19:11 says He comes down out of Heaven on a horse (there is no horse in Acts 1:11) ?? (that last part only is admittedly a new question)

So all in all, unfortunately while this was a game of Bombardment, Jerry seemed to think it was Dodge Ball. I have really enjoyed this and sincerely thank Knight very much for the opportunity to participate, and Jerry for agreeing to be my opponent. I invite anyone who has any questions or needs any further clarifications to please feel free to accost me in the Forum or email me. Grrrr!!!! It must stink to get trounced so thoroughly by a girl.

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Take head that no man deceive you

Take head that no man deceive you

When the Lord Jesus Christ began His discourse in reference to the sign of His coming,He warned those listening to “take heed that no man decive you”.He also said that there would be some who would attempt to deceive by saying that He has already come—“Then,if any man shall say unto you,Lo,here is Christ,or there,believe it not”(Mt.24:23).

Well,Dee Dee says that we should believe that the Lord Jesus has already come and gone.And from the following we can see that Dee Dee did not take the Lord´s words to heart.We can see that for Dee Dee to argue that the Lord Jesus has already come and gone that she is repeatedly forced to put an unatural meaning on the words of the Lord.In every instance where the Lord´s literal words do not match Dee Dee´s theories,she is forced to make His language figurative,even though there is no good reason for doing so.The following is just some of the instances where Dee Dee is forced to abandon the literal meaning of the Lord´s words.

“For then shall there be great tribulation,such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time,no,nor ever shall be”(Mt.24:21)

Of course the Second World War was a much bigger calamity than the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70.Over twenty million people were killed during the second world war,including many millions Jews.By every measue the destruction of WWII exceeded the destruction in AD70.When Jerusalem was destroyed, there was a little more than a million killed so it is outrageous to even suggest that the events in AD70 represent the greatest tribulation of all time.

And her answer to my further proof that the “great tribulation” reached beyond Jerusalem was no answer at all.I pointed out that the Parable of the Wheat and Tares speaks of a time when the whole WORLD will be involved—“the field is the WORLD...”(Mt.13:38).We see that the righteous and the unrighteous grow together until the harvest,and then at the harvest ALL the tares are gathered together and cast out of the kingdom(Mt.13:30).

Dee Dee says that in this case the “world” means “the inhabited the world,or more specifically in common NT usage,’the Roman empire’ “.Well,let us use this meaning and see if the previously mentioned events actually came to pass in AD70.Were ALL the unrighteous people who lived in the Roman Empire gathered together and cast out of the kingdom in AD70?

Of course not! All Dee Dee can say is “the kingdom parables are teaching about the inaguration of the kingdom,with judgment beginning with God´s OT people and the outworking of His progressive redemption and judgment.”

But that is not correct.This particular parable is dealing with the whole world,or,as Dee Dee says,the Roman Empire.This parable is NOT only about the judgment of God´s OT people,but instead is about the judgment of ALL the unrighteous in the Roman Empire.

“…at the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers,Gather together first the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them”(Mt.13:30).

This is talking about ALL the unrighteous in the Roman Empire,and not just those of Israel.The teaching of the verse is clear.At the time the Lord Jesus will set up His kingdom ALL the unrighteous in the inhabited earth will be cast out of the kingdom.

This alone proves that the “great tribulation” did not occur in AD70,because all the unrighteous people living in the Roman Empire at that time were not judged and cast into a furnace of fire.Dee Dee had a chance to answer this but it is obvious that she could not.

In his visions concerning the antichrist,John says that he “causeth THE EARTH and THEM THAT DWELL ON IT to worship the first beast…and DECEIVETH THEM THAT DWELL ON THE EARTH…and he causeth ALL,both small and great,rich and poor,free and enslaved,to receive a mark…”(Rev.13:12,14,16).

If words have any meaning,it is clear that the events surrounding the antichrist will involve the earth and them that dwell on it,and not just Israel.And since that never happened,we can be sure that the “great tribulation” remains in the future.

We can also see that Daniel prophesised that at the time of the “great tribulation” that Daniel´s “people shall be delivered,every one that shall be found written in the book”(Dan.12:1).Zecharia also prophesised that the Lord Jesus Christ would “fight against those nations” and “destroy all the nations that came against Jerusalem”(Zech.14:3;12:9).

There is no way possible that this event could refer to Jersulem´s destruction in AD70 unless one wants to argue that the Lord Jesus did not win but instead suffered a loss!And that is exactly what Dee Dee suggests happened!When asked how the Lord Jesus “destroyed all the nations that came against Jerusalem” in AD70,she replied that “the Empire´s decline can well be placed as beginning at that very point.”How can that be?Well,Dee Dee argues that Rome´s victory in destroying Jerusalem lead to Rome´s downfall because it was “Rome´s expansion that was the beginning of its fall”.

So we can see,according to Dee Dee,that even though the Lord fought against the Roman armies,He lost.And He destroyed Rome in that way!How can anyone believe such nonsense?The Lord also promised to “defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem” in that day:

“In that day shall the Lord defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem…And it shall come to pass,in that day,that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem”(Zech.12;8,9).

In answer to this verse,Dee Dee says that “Jerry is confused as to who the true ‘Jerusalem’ is.” Well,earlier Dee Dee said that the ‘Jerusalem’ in verse nine was in fact the Jerusalem that was destroyed in AD70.And now she expects us to believe that the ‘Jerusalem’ in the preceding verse is not the same Jerusalem. I have never in my life heard such nonsense.Dee Dee only proves that there is nothing she will not say in her attempt to defend her false theology.I would give up and go home if I ever reached a point where I would say something so obviously false.

Next,the Lord said that IMMEDIATELY AFTER the great tribulation that “there shall be signs in the sun,and in the moon,and in the stars;and upon the earth distress of nations,with perplexity;the sea and the waves roaring(Lk.21:25).Here we can see that the Lord is clearly teaching that there will be actual “signs” in the heavens.But since these “signs” did not occur in AD70,Dee Dee must do her best to DISTORT the words of the Lord.If His words are left as He spoke them,Dee Dee´s theory goes down the drain—andshe knows it!

In response,Dee Dee says that “the location of the cosmic imagery in Isaiah 13:9-10;34:4-5;Ezekiel 32:7-8 is ALSO said/implied to be ‘in heaven’ as well…” But go to those verses and you will see that it is never SAID that the signs are in the heavens.And Dee Dee has repeatedly argued that the “cosmic imagery” in Scripture IMPLY “judgment” and that there were no actual signs in the heavens.She wants it both ways—in one instance she says that the words IMPLY actual signs in the heavens,but in another instance the words IMPLY actual signs in the heavens.However much she attempts to wiggle out of this,the Lord´s words stand.He said that the “signs” would actually be in heaven.And since we know that no signs appeared in heaven immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70,we can rest assured that the “great tribulation” remains in the future.

Next,the following verse is the foundation on which the preterist system is built.Take that away and they are left with nothing.

“Verily,I say unto you,This generation shall not pass,till all these things be fulfilled”(Mt.24:34).

Dee Dee named Thayer and Arndt/Gingrich as the cream of Greek scholarship,so we will examine the meanings that these men place on “genea” (generation).Arndt and Gingrich say that the word means “literally,those descended from a common ancestor”(“A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature”).

So according to these men one of the meanings that can be put on “genea” is those descended from a common ancestor,a la “the children of Isreal”,Israel being none other than Jacob.The other member of the “cream of Greek scholarship” says that “genea” can mean “men of the same stock,a family”,as well as “a race of men very like each other in endowments,pursuits,character…”(“Thayer´s Greek English Lexicon”).

So according to the men who Dee Dee calls the “cream of Greek scholarship”,the word can indeed mean “race” or “the children of Israel”.And that is the exact meaning that the Lord puts on the word.Dee Dee would have us believe that even though the Lord stated implicitly that He did not know the “day or hour” that these events would occur (because the Father had put in His own power the ”times and seasons”),that He would SPECULATE that these men standing there would be alive to see all of the things He described come about. In regard to the use of the word “you” in the passage,we can see that the use of that word can be in reference to “the children of Israel” who lived either in the past or in the future.(see Mt.23:35,39—the first century Jews did not kill Zechariah because it was a past generation that did;the first century Jews did not say,Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord” after the Lord said those words,but instead a future generation will say those words).

So we see that this important verse of the preterists can be answered witthout reverting to the ridiculous exegesis that Dee Dee puts on such verses as the Lord´s words that “I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.”In fact,my interpretation of the Lord´s words in the entire Olivet Discourse is not dependent on non-literal methods of interpretation.From first to last the Lord´s words can be interpreted literally,while at the same time Dee Dee is constantly having to make the Lord´s words mean something entirely different than what He actually said.

Next we will examine the testimony of several of the early church fathers in regard to the “great tribulation” and the coming of the antichrist.On the site we read that “Irenaeus,Bishop of Lyons,companion of Polycarp,John´s pupil…”

Surely Polycarp knew whether or not the “great tribulation” had come to pass,especially considering the fact that he studied directly under the man who wrote the Revelation.And if Polycarp knew,then we can rest assured that Irenaeus also knew.And by the words of Irenaeus it is clear that he believed that the “great tribulation” remained in the future,as well as the coming of the antichrist.This means that he did not believe that the “great tribulation” occurred in AD70:

“…in which Temple the enemy SHALL sit,endeavoring to show himself as Christ,as the Lord also declares:’But when you see the abomination of desolation,which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet,standing in the holy place (let him that readeth understand),then let those who are in Judea flee into the mountains…”(Irenaeus,“Against Heresies” 5.25.2).

“Daniel too,looking forward to the end of the last kingdom,i.e.,the ten last kings,amongst whom the kingdom of those men SHALL be partitioned,and upon whom the son of perdition SHALL come…”(Irenaeus,“Against Heresies” 5.25.3).

Although the testimony of the early church fathers was not inspired,it is clear that Irenaeus was certain that the “gresat tribulation” had not yet occurred,and he was writing at a point in time that was less than one hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70.Common sense tells us that if the “great tribulation” had in fact occurred in AD70,then men living so close in time to this event would know for sure if it had occurred or not, and if the antichrist had come or not!

In fact,almost all of the early church fathers were of the opinion that the coming of the antichrist remained in the future.Therefore,they did not believe that the “great tribulation” happened in AD70.

Tertullian (AD 145-220): “And that the beast Antichrist with his false prophet MAY wage war on the Church of God…”(“On the Resurrection of the Flesh,Chapter 41).

Hippolytus (170-236): “Now concerning the tribulation of the persecution WHICH IS TO FALL upon the Church from the adversary,John also speaks this: ‘And I saw a great and wondrous sign in heaven…’ That refers to the one thousand two hundred and threescore days [the half the week] during which the tyrant IS to reign and persecute the Church (“Treatise on Christ and Antichrist”,Chapters 60,61).

Those who lived closest to the time of AD70 and did not believe that the “great tribulation” occurred in AD70 reads like a who´s who of the early church fathers—Irenaeus,Tertullian,Hippolytus,Cyprian,Cyril of Jerusalem,John Chrysostom—the list goes on and on.How could all these men be in error concerning an event that was supposed to occur so close to the time in which they lived?

The beliefs espoused by Dee Dee did not come into existence until after the reformation.At that time there were many of the reformers who were identifying the Pope with the Antichrist.In order to counteract these charges,Rome set out to INVENT a system of interpretation that put the coming of the antichrist before the Popes of Rome came into existence.Joseph Tanner wrote that “the Jesuit Alcazar devoted himself to bring into prominence the preterist method of interpretation…and thus endeavored to show that the prophecies of Antichrist were fulfilled before the popes ever ruled in Rome,and therefore could not apply to the Papacy”(Joseph Tanner,”Daniel and the Revelation”,p.16,17).

In summation,we can see that the choice is clear as to whether or not the “great tribulation” has already happened or if it remains in the future.In order to believe Dee Dee´s view,we MUST believe that she is correct and the early church fathers were in error.We must also believe Dee Dee´s twisted interpretation that the Lord fought against the nations that came against Jerusalem in AD70,but He was defeated.We must believe that all the “unrighteous” were gathered out of the Roman Empire in AD70.

On the other hand,in order to believe that the “great tribulation” remains in the future,we can very easily believe that the early church fathers who did not believe that that event occurred in AD70,nor did they believe that the antichrist came at that time.We can also believe the plain and literal words of the Lord throughout the entire Olivet Discourse.

I would like to thank those who make this debate possible,as well as Dee Dee for giving me the chance to expose just how far some are willing to go to deny the plain words of the Lord Jesus Christ.Dee Dee said that “it must stink to get trounced so thoroughly by a girl.” Well,if I did indeed get trounced by Dee Dee,I have no one to blame but myself.I should have taken the advice of a close friend to never argue with an idiot,because she will bring you down to her level and beat you with experience.
Not open for further replies.