Mystery Babylon as an Adulteress

The more technical arguments for making Mystery Babylon Jerusalem don't hold up at all.  What does hold up are the more thematic connections to themes in the Hebrew Bible about her as a wife of YHWH engaged in Harlotry with The World.

The problem is a lot of Christians are uncomfortable with accepting that that could be us, we think The Church is supposed to the one people of God who won't fall into the same pitfalls that Samaria and Jerusalem fell into.  Even when more fringe elements are criticizing the mainstream Church it's usually in the context of wanting to deny that they actually count as The Church, as legitimately part of the Body and Bride of Christ.

So Protestants and Evangelicals and Torah Keepers point out the ways in which Mystery Babylon can apply to the Catholic Church, but are unwilling to see how we've been guilty of the same basic sins in our own way.

I'm not an Historicist in remotely the traditional sense.  But I do think it's fascinating how the clues in Revelation about Mystery Babylon both point to Rome and to her being either The or A Church.  Meaning on some level however indirectly this book that even the most skeptical critics can't date to later then the mid second century predicted Rome becoming Christian.

The Revelation is drawing on Old Testament imagery, but it's directed at The Church, at Seven Churches in Asia Minor.  And the Jezebel of Thyatira is associated with a lot of the same imagery as the Harlot of Revelation 17.

However the time when Rome became Christian is also the time when OG Rome on the Tiber River ceases to be the only candidate for who Rome is, because that is when Constantinople was founded.

In my view the only cities eligible to be considered candidates for the Seven Hilled city of Revelation are ones that define themselves that way as a positive because they want to be seen as an heir to Rome.  The main three candidates are modern Rome, Constantinople/Istanbul and Moscow.

God's judgments are for correction, this Harlot no matter who she is should not be seen as being permanently rejected, this all goes back to Ezekiel 16.

I have to admit I've spent much of the last year or two trying to be convinced of a form of Post-Millennialism, The Revivalist form however is the only form I'd accept.  I don't want to be a Prophet of Doom predicting this world has to get a lot worse before it can get better.

And I understand the Post-Mil and Partial Preterist arguments about Revelation 20.  But in my look at Church History I see the Church as fitting the Revivalist Post-Mill interpretation of that Chapter for a lot less then a Thousand years, not more.  We were a Camp set apart and separate from The World not even three hundred years.  Only the Ancient Church of the East (often misleadingly called Nestorians) even came close to being like that for a full thousand years.

What I have become more open to are elements of Historicism, but not the Day=Year theory, so if someone has a form of it that works without that nonsense, point me to it and I'll give it a shot.

A lot of passages are applied to The Millennium when they're actually about New Jerusalem

I know I did this post once already very early in this blog's history, but that post is strongly tied into things I've changed my mind on since.

Let's start with how Jesus promised The Twelve Disciples they would sit on Twelve Thrones ruling the Twelve Tribes of Israel at the Last Supper.  I've seen that applied to The Millennium multiple times, but The Twelve don't come up in Revelation 20.

Revelation 21:12-16 refers to Twelve Gates for the Tribes of Israel on which are named the Twelve Tribes and by them are Twelve "angels" and also Twelve Foundations in the Walls with the names of The Twelve Apostles.  I've already explained how "Angels" can refer to human believers but even without that detail I'd still conclude that this is where the promise of the Twelves' Thrones is fulfilled.  In the ancient Near East leaders of a city were often seated by the gate, this custom is alluded to in Ruth 4.

Outside Revelation allusions to The Millennium are much more rare.  But I definitely see it in 1 Corinthians 15:23-28 and probably also in Daniel 7:12.  When it comes to things like where Zechariah 14 ends or Isaiah 19 I'm far from decided.  But at least one other probable TNAK reference to the Millennium will come up later.

However the big passage I want to discus is Isaiah 65-66, chapter 65 verses 17 and 22 are what Revelation 21 verse 1 is practically directly quoting.  And verses 18-19 refer to New Jerusalem though without using the word "new" as explicitly, and Isaiah 66:1(as interpreted by Stephen in Acts 7:44-50) is possibly the reason New Jerusalem is said not to have a Temple.

But verse 20 is thrown around as proof this can't be The New Creation because people still die.  Isaiah is very poetic in style, and considering what I explained on my other blog about how to interpret Scripture Impressionistically rather then Lexically,  It feels to me like it should be blindingly obvious Isaiah 65:20 is actually saying the opposite, that this is his poetic way of saying people will not die and there will be no sin.

People abuse what Jesus said about people neither "Marrying or giving in marriage" in The Resurrection "Like the Angels in Heaven", to prove that there is no Biological Reproduction going on in the New Heaven and New Earth.  Jesus said that in the context of refuting the Sadducees trying to discredit The Resurrection by implying the Levirate marriages will create Polyandrous situations.  It's marriage as defined in Genesis 3 that will end, marriage as a hierarchy, not the Marriage of Genesis 2.  In New Jerusalem we will ALL be Married to Jesus and each other.  

But on the other hand the verse in Isaiah 65 taken to imply new people being born is the very same poetic passage taken to imply some people will die.  Still I believe The Resurrection is the restoration of The Pre-Fall conditions, and so I lean towards suspecting painless childbirth will be an option.

The Patristics often didn't distinguish between The Millennium and New Jerusalem at all.  And while today they are distinguished by all Pre-Millennialists, there is still a desire to make The Millennium far more Utopic then it actually is.  The New Heaven and New Earth will be a Communist Utopia, The Millennium is more complicated, in proper Marxist terminology it's perhaps more like the Dictatorship of the Proliteriate.

For one thing The Saints are NOT ruling the entire world, we have a Camp which is also called the Beloved City.  And based on Revelation 20 alone there is no proof that Camp is Jerusalem. 

You might express concern that this "downgrading" I appear to be doing of The Millennium could serve the interests of Post-Millenialists who argue it fits the current world just fine.  Well indeed I don't consider Post-Mills or Partial Preterists to be Heretics in the way I do Resurrection denying Full Preterists and Amillenials, but I do still disagree with them.

Number 1, my main reason for viewing The Millennium as still yet future is less anything about The Millennium itself but more what must happen before it starts and the absurdity of claiming those things have already happened.  Which is the Parousia and the literal physical Bodily Resurrection of at least all Church Age believers.

Number 2 is the post I made on Zion recently.

The Thousand years strictly speaking refers to the time Satan is bound not the Kingdom itself which will have no end.  The Kingdom begins on Mount Zion in Revelation 14 and then it conquers The beast after The beast destroys Babylon.  Since I do believe the Gog and Magog invasion of Revelation 20 is the same as Ezekiel 38, that gives me confirmation that Israel is the location of this Camp.

Since I don't view The Millennium as a pure perfect Utopia, but it is distinct from the world we know now, what will it be like?  Well if I had to pick an inevitably very flawed literary analogy I would say the Second Age of Middle Earth aka Arda.  At the end of the First Age Morgoth (the Satan analogue) is sealed away and it's not till a Thousand years into the Second Age that the Enemy begins taking direct action again via Sauron's founding of Barad-Dur.  But instead of an Atlantis analogue it's a land at the crossroads of the major continents being ruled by Resurrected Saints that the Enemy is planning war with.

[There is also a part of my Weeb Brain that sees traits of the Millennium in Crystal Tokyo from Sailor Moon lore, particularly in the Manga/Crystal continuity.]

I know I sometimes criticize views opposed to mine for treating The Bible like a fantasy novel, that's why I stressed it's not a perfect analogy.  First and foremost I reject the opinions of some that any future Messianic Kingdom will involve a rejecting of modern technology, in fact I believe we will be colonizing the Stars.

Now I have saved Ezekiel 40-48 for last because my thoughts on that are uniquely complicated.  In fact I'm saving it for after the jump break.

How much Patristic support is there for Preterism?

I ultimately don't actually care what the "Early Church Fathers" thought on anything.  I'm true Sola Sciprtura, and my exact views on Bible Prophecy are not 100% in agreement with any interpretation known to have been expressed in antiquity.  If aspects of what I believe genuinely didn't exist before a guy named Darby in the 1800s then so be it, all I care about is what conclusions the Scriptures lead me to.

But preterists both full and partial, amillenials and post-millennialism in all it's forms don't have that option even when they are nominally protestant.  If the history of The Church is the fulfillment of the Thousand Years refereed to in Revelation 20 and/or New Jerusalem, then we should have known that from the start.

I don't necessarily expect the reverse to be true though, the whole point of Pre-Millennialism is that we consider the age of Grace to be one where the follows of the true God are just as capable of getting things wrong as we were before, even at the earliest stage, The Apostles themselves kept misunderstanding Jesus while He was right there correcting them.

So I'm not even making this investigation because I think it could be the ultimate death nail to other views.  It's because I care about history being represented properly, and because I do respect the early Christians, even the ones I most disagree with, and so don't want to see their views misrepresented for the sake of an ideological argument by anyone on my side or agaisnt it.

First let's talk about what does not inherently make someone a Preterist in their view of Revelation.

1. Referring to what happened in 70 AD as being foretold by Jesus.

There seems to be some straw-manning of Futurism going around where some think any acknowledgment that Jesus "not one stone" comment refers to 70 AD is incompatible with Futurism.  When the truth is I've rarely seen that connection denied by even the most extreme futurists.

First of all I don't think we even need the three "Olivte Discourse" chapters to find Jesus foretelling it, in Luke especially he refers to it a lot.  I personally see 70 AD in more prophecies then most of my fellow Futurists.  Of the the three chapters in question I only have a definitively futurist stance on Matthew 24.  However there is also a position called Middleism which takes a Preterist view of Matthew 24 but a Futurist view of Revelation, these terms didn't exist in antiquity but it looks to me like that position was a common one in the Early Church.

2, Viewing the 70th Week of Daniel as already fulfilled.

Lots of Post-Trib Futurists and Historicists (who are generally Pre-Mill and so more akin to Futurism on what I think matters most then Preterism) also view the 70th Week as already fulfilled.  My own view is that the 70th week was 30-37 AD, so on that issue I'm more preterist then the people who obsess over 70 AD.

Basically those are the two most prominent examples of a more general fact that what someone says about other prophecies proves nothing about their view of Revelation.

Yes your view of Revelation will effect how you view other things because it's referencing older Prophets all the time.  But there is no consistency even within a basic view to what conclusions believers will make from those connections.  In my own view sometimes Revelation is claiming to be what that older Prophecy was actually about all along, but sometimes it's more like history repeating itself and/or making an analogy to help us understand what it's talking about.

3. Identifying The Church as now the true Israel in some capacity.

Like the 70th Week example it seems a lot of people opposing Futurism treat it as if Pre-Trib Dispensationalism is the only form Futurism comes in.  Post-Tribbers pretty much all take this view in some way, and I as a form of Mid-Trib hold a position between the extreme Dispensationalism of Chuck Missler and the extreme conflation of Post-Tribers.

There are multiple non Dispensational views on how The Church and Israel relate.  Two-House theology is predicated on specifically equating The Church or at least the "Gentile" Church with Ephraim.  Mormonism is actually based on a form of that view but it's also popular in the Hebrew Roots/Torah Observant movements.

Rob Skiba likes to call "Replacement Theology" a straw man, he says the Dispensationalists are the true Replacement theologists.  He stresses how even in The Torah citizenship in the Nation of Israel was not predicated solely on bloodlines, people not biologically descended from Jacob or even Abraham could be counted in as long as they got Circumcised and kept the Torah.  To him it's about us being the continuation of Israel.

But that's not a Strawman when applied to 70 AD Preterism.  I was recently watching a Partial Preterist's video on Revelation 11 and the Two Witnesses and he made it explicitly clear, God divorced one wife to replace her with another, there will be no redemption for the divorced wife.  This view is known as Supersessionism.  And make no mistake there are Post-Trib Futurists who also see it that way not Rob Skiba's way.  And the sad thing is that seems to be the way the "Early Church" talked about this issue and is the main reason I have no real desire to agree with them, Anti-Semitism creeped into the Greek Speaking Church very early on.

Even when someone is talking specifically about Revelation some things are simply not as inherently Preterist as Preterists looking for support will assume.

4. Identifying Mystery Babylon with Jerusalem isn't inherently Preterist either.

Chris White is a "Pre-Wrath" Futurist who wrote a book on Babylon being Jerusalem, and he was willing to do that even though he's just as much of a Dispensational Zionist as the Pre-Tribbers.  When he says he intends nothing Anti-Semitic by it I believe him, he's simply misguided.  Among the openly Anti-Semitic Conspiracy theorists there are people like Texe Marrs who was Post-Trib from what I've read.

This 4th example I kinda didn't need to include because I'm currently aware of no early Patristic support for it, though I certainly could have missed something.  In fact from what I've seen so far Babylon as Rome is the only Mystery Babylon view I've seen among them.  Instead the Anti-Semitism of the Early Church manifested in viewing the "Antichrist" as a Jewish Messiah claimant The Jews will accept.  So literally the polar opposite of the standard modern Preterist view on the bad guys of Revelation.

Now onto specific claims.

A website called Preteristarchive has pages devoted to a number of early fathers where they concede the Futurist stances of some but spend a lot of time engaging in the above distractions and other tactics to mislead people.  It does not have pages for Tertullian or Methodius and wrongly classified Ambrose of Milan and Eusebius as Ante-Nicene.

Froom is the name of a Historicist who wrote a book called The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers that you can find online.  He generally avoids trying to make anyone sound more in agreement with his views then they actually were, instead trying to speculate on why they were sometimes wrong in his view.  His one mistake in that area was claiming Tertullian made a connection he didn't actually make regarding The Temple of God as The Church and the Temple in II Thessalonians 2.  While I don't always agree with him his book was a key source in the research I did for this post.

An interesting thing about the most popular forms of Historicism is during the Pre-Nicene and even early post Nicene era their view on at least The Antichrist would have still been a pretty Futurist one.  None the less there were still things you could believe back then pretty incompatible with proper Historicism.

His book documents pretty well how Pre-Nicaea it was pretty much only the Alexandrians and maybe Victorinus of Potiou who entertained any position other then Pre-Mill on Revelation 20.

Justin Martyr is the oldest definitely known example of anyone referencing The Revelation at all.  Maybe The Didichae had Revelation 12's description of The Dragon in mind when it says "the world deceiver", if so that was a futurist application inserted into what seems like a futurist application of Matthew 24 (it's very possible Matthew was in fact the only NT writing the Didichae used at all).

The Preteristarchive has a page on Justin Martyr, and it takes a lot of things he said out of context to make it seem like he's explicitly rejecting Pre-Mill, but they exist in the context of him debating with a Jew about the Rabbinic Jewish Sabbath Millennium concept.  Today many Dispensationalists and Hebrew Roots types like identifying the Revelation 20 Millennium with that Rabbinic concept, but Justin clearly didn't.  I myself have come to not like defining the Millennium as a "Sabbath" Millennium because 1 Corinthians 15 defined it as a period that isn't a "rest" at all.

They failed however to quote the one and only time Justin explicitly refers to The Revelation.  I shall provide it here.

Dialogue with Trypho 81.4 "And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place."

Pretty clearly and unambiguously a Pre-Mill interpretation.

More then one website and blog trying to paint the Early Church as non Pre-Mil as possible will inevitably concede the Pre-Mill Futurism of Hippolytus of Rome and to some extent also his "mentor" Irenaeus.

The problem with conceding him and trying to paint him as the ONLY one is NOT their alleged connection to John which I feel is overstated and don't care about.  It's that only he actually wrote in depth on Bible Prophecy at all, it was really not a major priority of the surviving writings we have from the Early Church especially Pre-Nicaea.  It mostly comes up when refuting Gnostics and Origen on The Resurrection, in which context it frequently comes across that the "Proto-Orthodox" clearly seem Pre-Mil when stressing a literal Bodily Resurrection.  Only Hippolytus wrote an entire book on specifically the subject of The Antichrist.  And in so doing expressed many views on the matter I no longer and/or never did agree with, but his view on the matter was definitely a Futurist one.  And he was not speaking as if he was massively breaking with the norm, he spoke as if some of his specific details may be new but the gist was basically what everyone already agreed on..

And when the only unambiguous counter example(s) to pre-mill are Origen and some other Alexandrians linked to Origen, then your side is on the shakier ground since he was condemned as  a Heretic at a Synod in the 540s.  He's connected to a lot of Heresy, but none of his earliest critics like Methodius of Olympus ever objected to his Soterology, it was his Pre-Existence of Souls doctrine and how that effected his view of The Resurrection that was the core issue.

I'm not an Origen apologist the way most of my modern fellow Universal Salvation proponents often are, because I know that Soteorlogy was also supported by many others who shared none of Origen's issues, and a few condemned for going in the opposite direction on the literal/allegorical dichotomy.

I actually feel like 70 AD Preterism is far more incompatible with a God of Love who Saves ALL then Futurism, because as I stressed above they are adamant on YHWH's refusal to forgive Israel, they make YHWH's promises to never permanently cast Israel aside into bold faced LIES.

Origen's view of Revelation was probably more Idealist then 70 AD focused Preterism given his approach to Scripture in general.

On both Tertullian and Hippolytus one Amill blog admits they were Pre-Mill but says "not like modern Premillenialism", by which they mainly must mean not being Pre-Trib Dispensationalists.  Hippolytus was clearly Post-Trib on his timing of the Parusia, though he did support the gaps in Daniel 9 and 11 that are today usually typical of Dispensationalism.  I myself even in how I view The Millennium's nature am not like most modern pre-Millers, but my disagreement puts the Patristics I've looked at as closer to them then to me.

Tertullian was influenced by the Montanists and so occasionally viewed with suspicion by later generations of The Church, but still not as much suspicion as Origen.  Again Froom tried to paint him as the one Pre-Nicene father who seemed compatible with his Historicism, and indeed Tertulian is the earliest example I've seen of explicitly identifying Babylon with Rome.  But he also clearly identified The Two Witnesses with Enoch and Elijah.

Eusebius of Caesarea was agaisnt the Millennium but because of that questioned the Canonocity of Revelation altogether. Thing is a lot of writers at this time saw the Diocletian Persecution and it's relief under Constantine as the fulfillment of the future Kingdom happening then not back when The Church was founded.  Constantinople was in turn viewed as the New Jerusalem as much as it was a New Rome.

 Athanasius, Ambrose, Hilary and Jerome all spoke about things like The Antichrist in ways that show a futurist understanding of that issue, even Gregory of Nysaa the one time he mentioned The Antichrist clearly viewed him as yet future.  Both versions of the Nicene Creed rule out at least Full Preterism by clearly defining the Parusia as having not happened yet..  

Aphrahat one of the oldest Syrian Fathers also definitely taught Premillenialism and a Literal Resurrection.  His Eschatology can be considered a from of Historicism, but does not have the Antichrist view typical of Protestant Historicism.

In 380 Ticonius published a Revelation commentary that became the foundation of Post Millenialism as we know it today, and was in turn the basis for Augustine of Hippo's eschatology.

Over the course of the next few centuries the leadership of the Church became increasingly either Post-Mill or not Prophecy concerned at all as now Jesus overthrowing the current world system became no longer desirable to them.  However the Popular literature of this era implies Futurism was still the preferred eschatology of the masses, like the Apocalypse of Pseudo Methodius and other texts related to The Last Roman Emperor tradition.  Meanwhile The Book of The Bee shows that understanding of Prophecy continued to thrive among the "Nestorians" into the 13th Century.

Also identifying The Two Witnesses with Enoch and Elijah seemed pretty universal when they came up all.

Can every argument for applying The Olivite Discourse to 70 AD fit the Bar Kochkba Revolt even better?

My answer is not Luke 21 but definitely Mark 13 and Matthew 24 if they can be interpreted Preteristically at all.

First of all even the Preterist interpretation of "this generation", as I documented when arguing for my late date for Revelation there were indeed eyewitnesses to Jesus still around in the reign of Hadrian.

70 AD Preterists obsess over an argument that a Biblical Generation is 40 years because the wandering in the wilderness was to kill off a generation.  But not all of them actually died, that statement was hyperbole, it was mostly just about the 10 spies who gave the bad report.  Numbers 14:33-24 clarifies it was 40 years because the spy mission was 40 days.  Genesis 6 and the lifespan of Moses support making a Biblical generation up to 120 years.

Matthew 24 is the one I'm most strictly futurist on because of certain details completely unique to it, but rhetorically I shall  keep it in mind here.

With Luke 21 it's unique characteristics are what makes it most applicable to 70 AD.  Only Luke 21 actually uses the name of Jerusalem at all, when foretelling it's desolation which is language borrowed from Jeremiah about the fall to Nebuchadnezzar indicating what happened to Jerusalem then will happen again.

But Luke 21 does NOT contain a statement that this time of trouble is will never be surpassed.

The Bark Kochba revolt did not add anything to the destruction of Jerusalem since this time the Rebels never even had Jerusalem to begin with.  But for Judea as a whole that war was far more catastrophic and destructive then the 66-73 AD war and over a shorter period of time.   Many historians consider this the real beginning of the Diaspora.  It is only the fact that it doesn't have it's own Josephus that makes it less analyzed by historians and scholars and less romanticized by artists and poets.

Luke 21 is about things that happened before the "beginnings of sorrows", Matthew 24 about things that happen after, and Mark 13 about things that happen during.  Meanwhile the second time Matthew and Mark's discourses bring up the issue of False Christs has no parallel in Luke at all.

This is significant because contrary to popular opinion the era leading up to and during the 66-73 AD war was NOT filled with would be Messiahs.  Josephus only ever uses the word Christ when describing what Jesus was called. There were would be prophets, and secular revolutionaries, but no claimed Messiahs.  Jewish prophetic expectations of the time were generally that the Messiah can't come till after Rome has already fallen.

Bar Kochba was the first to ever claim to be the Messiah as a rebel leader, that was his innovation.  And he really was the second person after Jesus to ever truly claim that title at all.  Meanwhile since Preterists don't take literally the stuff involving the Sun, Moon and Stars, maybe Stars falling from heaven is also wordplay on the name of Bar Kochba?  Kukbe is the word used in the Peshita?

The Abomination of Desolation is a very specific phrase, that has connotations more specific then just the etymological meanings of the words used to construct it.  Of the two places where the phrase appears in Daniel the one in chapter 12 is probably what Jesus is revealing to still have at least one more yet future fulfillment.  But it's the context in Daniel 11 that defines it.

There are three or four different Hebrew words that get translated "Abomination" in the KJV, the one used in Daniel is not even related to the one used in Leviticus 18-20 and Ezekiel 40-48.  But more importantly to the topic at hand, the precise one used in Daniel is everywhere it appears a synonym for an Idol or False god, from Deuteronomy 29:17 to 1 Kings 11 to Jeremiah 32:34.

But what makes the Abomination of Desolation special is it's being placed inside The Temple (not near it) by a Pagan ruler who had outlawed their faith.  The history of the Hasmonean revolt was to first century Jews not just the reason behind Hanukkah, it was to them as the Revolutionary War or French Revolution is for modern America and France.  When Jesus used this phrase he knew exactly what imagery he was evoking and so did His audience.

Now I'm open to a more "creative" interpretation of what a Futurist fulfillment of this for Matthew 24 may look like, but that's about redefining what this would mean for the New Testament Church with the help of II Thessalonians 2 just as we redefine a number of Hebrew Bible concepts under the doctrine that now we are The Temple.  If you're going to insist this is about the Judea of that time, then you have to be specific to what that idea meant to those Judeans.

70 AD Preterists bend over backwards coming up with every excuse they can to apply that phrase to something that happened in 70 AD.  They take a passage from the Talmud claiming Titus had sex with a whore on a Torah scroll and sliced open the veil with his sword.  Leaving aside how I doubt Titus would have had the means, motive or opportunity to do that from what the actual eyewitness Historian tells us, even this Talmud passage doesn't call that an Abomination of Desolation or compare it to Antiochus Epiphanes in any way.

The timing is also wrong, by the time Titus was able to anything anywhere near The Temple it was already too late to run.  Jesus speaking of the Abomination of Desolation as an event that begins the time of trouble not occurring at the middle or end of it. That fit Hadrian who's said to have set up the initial Idol in 31 AD sparking the Rebellion even though the full Temple is built after.

Preterists aren't the only ones refusing to distinguish between the Olivet Discourses, there are also Futurists who want to use Luke 21 to say Jerusalem will be surrounded by armies again.

Yes the three discourses are "parallel" in a lot of ways, but the differences are there for a reason and ignoring them because you don't want to think Jesus was foretelling more then one thing is simply not respecting the text.  In the case of Luke it has to do with how this isn't even the only place that Gospel records Jesus talking about the fall of Jerusalem, that is a theme of the entire Gospel in a way it's not in the others.

So plenty of people want to argue that Luke 21:20 is about the same thing as The Abomination of Desolation because Jesus then advises basically the same reaction.  As if there can't be more then one good reason to get out of Dodge.

Remember the OG Abomination of Desolation preceded that Jewish revolt, and since they won that war the city was never surrounded by armies.

One of the oldest examples of Patristic support for viewing the Abomination of Desolation as already re-fulfilled is Jerome applying the term to the Statue of Hadrian set up where The Temple formally stood which was still standing when he wrote his commentary on Matthew.  Jerome may have been off on saying it was specifically over the Holy of Holies, in the Bordeaux Pilgrim the two Statues he saw were separate from the "stone" the Jews anointed which I think may have been where the Ark once rested.  Epiphanes' statue was on the Brazen Altar according to 1 Maccabees 1:54-59.

We even have a secular pagan gentile source on this happening, Cassius Dio.

[69.12.1] At Jerusalem, Hadrian founded a city in place of the one which had been razed to the ground, naming it Aelia Capitolina, and on the site of the temple of the [Jewish] god, he raised a new temple to Jupiter. This brought on a war of no slight importance nor of brief duration, 

[69.12.2] for the Jews deemed it intolerable that foreign races should be settled in their city and foreign religious rites planted there. So long, indeed, as Hadrian was close by in Egypt and again in Syria, they remained quiet, save in so far as they purposedly made of poor quality such weapons as they were called upon to furnish, in order that the Romans might reject them and they themselves might thus have the use of them. But when Hadrian went farther away, they openly revolted.

Meanwhile somewhat less reliable sources like the Historia Augusta say Hadrian also banned Circumcision and sacrificed Pigs to this Idol making it echo Antiochus Epiphanes even more.  And like then this caused the war rather then being caused by it.  It seem Pigs were depicted on Coins minted in Aelia Capitolina.

And like in 70 AD the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem did as Jesus advised and fled, becoming the Nazarenes of later generations, some may have went to Mesopotamia and also became among the ancestors of the "Nestorians" or other Syraic Rite sects.

There is a lot of Misinformation related to the Archaeological facts about The Temple Mount

I finally started to just read some stuff from those who defend the official mainstream position.  And the people wanting to remove The Temple from the Mount altogether are misrepresenting a lot of facts especially in regards to the Antonia Fortress.

Wherever Antonia was it certainly wasn't the entirety of the Temple Mount.  And it probably may not have been where Jesus was tried before Pilate, and there are etymological issues with identifying the Gabbatha of John 19 with a Rock like the Dome of The Rock's.

One thing I've been noticing for awhile in those supporting the Gihon Spring or Nea Church location flat out ignore Hadrian's Temple to Jupiter when discussing the history since they want to claim nothing else was ever built on the same site.  We know even from a secular pagan gentile source that Hadrain did that, Cassius Dio.  And Jerome says the Statue of Hadrian standing over the Holy of Holies was still there in his day. Jerome identifies it with the Abomination of Desolation of Matthew 24 but still clearly had a Futurist understanding of Revelation.  For that eschatologically influenced reason he might be off on it being exactly where the Holy of Holies was, many think Antiochus's AoD was in the Holy of Holies when in fact 1 Maccabees says it was on the Brazen Altar.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the Baalbek Temple built by the same architect so closely resembles the basic lay out of The Temple Mount, with the Hexagonal Court being what become the Dome of The Rock and the Temple proper being the Al Aqsa Mosque.  Though the Southern Conjecture/Al-Kas fountain view proponents of whom I have been one in the past are perhaps assuming too much about the location of the Equestrian Statue being the same.

I'd like to see the primary sources on Byzantine Jerusalem's Church of Holy Wisdom discussed by someone without an agenda.  How true is it that it stood where the Dome of the Rock is now and that it was identified with a location relating to the trial(s) of Jesus?

Those who believe the Temple was where the Dome currently is say that spot was identified as such by Muslims right from the time of Umar.  For one the oldest Muslin worship site on the Mount is the Al Aqsa Mosque, the current silver domed building is slightly younger then the Dome of the Rock but it was still where Muslims prayed first.  And even then many scholars now think even that oldest primitive Al Aqsa Mousge doesn't go back to Umar but was founded by Muawiyah.

There is no real detailed contemporary account of what Umar did in Jerusalem.  The account typically used by Gihon Spring proponents is a 14th Century account.  Given my personal theories about the early history of Islam(that it was really just an Ishmaelite form of Christianity originally), I suspect Umar never intended any Mosque to be built in Jerusalem as he wanted it to remain a city for the previous People of The Book and if he prayed anywhere it was only the location just a little east of the Holy Sepulcher.  He captured the city because of his alliance with the Jews and Miaphysite Christians who'd been persecuted by Heraclius.  The Qurran does teach that the Land of Israel belongs to the Children of Israel.

Likewise when the Crusaders controlled Jerusalem they called the Al Aqsa Mosque the Temple of Solomon and the Dome of The Rock the Temple of The Lord, The Lord in Christianity is Jesus meaning that name implies a New testament significance.

I'm going to Copy/Paste from The Bordeaus Pilgram (333 AD) via this website.
http://andrewjacobs.org/translations/bordeaux.html

There are in Jerusalem two big pools to the side of the Temple, that is, one to the right, another to the left, which Solomon made, but inside the cite there are two twin pools with five porches, which are called Bethsaida.

There those who have been sick for many years have been healed.

These pools have water which becomes scarlet when disturbed.

There is a crypt there where Solomon tortured demons.

There is the corner of the highest tower, where the Lord went up and he said to the one who was tempting him, and the Lord said to him: Do not tempt the Lord your God, but him only should you serve (Matt 4:7, 10).

There is the cornerstone about which it was said: stone, which the builders reproved, this has been made the head stone (Matt 21:42).

And under the pinnacle of the tower there are many chambers, where Solomon had his palace.

There is also the chamber in which he sat and wrote about wisdom; but the chamber itself has a single stone for its roof.

There are also very great pools of water underground and a great pool built with work.

And in that building where the Temple was, which Solomon built, in the marble before the altar is the blood of Zechariah which you would say was shed today; indeed, there appear to be traces of the soldier's boots, who killed him, throughout the area, such that you would think they had been pressed in wax.

There are two status of Hadrian; not far from the statues is a pierced stone to the Jews comes every year and they anoint it and they lament with a groan and they tear their garments and then they withdraw.

There is the house of Hezekiah, King of Judah.

I have come to believe all of this section is about stuff on The Temple Mount.  After this he heads south out of what was then the city proper where he observed the Pool of Siloam then goes to the Western hill which was considered to be Zion at that time.

The use of the name "Bethsadia" is confusing because the New Testament and Josephus use that of a place not anywhere near Jerusalem.

There are at least two probably three different stones refereed to here. However people confident The Dome is the site of The Temple seem to treat all three as the same and as being the titular Rock under that Dome.  I have my doubts any of them really match that Rock but the best bet is that the modern "Well of Souls" is what this Pilgrim identified as the chamber where Solomon wrote "the book of Wisdom" (whether that is the apocryphal text or they meant Proverbs I won't venture to guess).  This association could explain why a Church built there later was called Holy Wisdom, but again I need an unbiased way to analyze the more obscure primary sources on that Church.

When the Pilgrim says "and in that building where" he's clearly moved to a more specific location and so the stone that will be mentioned last can't be identified with the two prior stones.  Those two stones are explicitly not in The Temple proper.

Identifying the Dome of The Rock as the Temple's Location depends on the "pierced stone" the Jews came to anoint every year (we know elsewhere that day was the 9th of Av, not Yom Kippur as one article I read criticizing Cornuke assumed).  This stone was (believed to be) either a Cornerstone of The Temple or one which was supposed to be where The Ark rested and so probably only slightly larger then The Ark itself, something more like the Stone around which The Church of the Seat of Mary was constructed.  But on second thought this Stone is not actually likely to be where the Holy of Holies was since The Jews have always been adamant about not risking accidentally walking over it.

So yes, I still consider the Dome itself the least likely of spots on The Mount to place The Temple.  I have become more open to the Dome of The Tablets view because that places it directly due west of the Golden Gate.  However the narrative thrust of the Pilgrim's description could be seen as moving southward and thus placing The Temple south of the presumed Chamber Solomon wrote the Book of Wisdom in.

I am far from making up my mind on this issue.  I'm still attracted to the Nea Church being the site of at least one of The Temples, or maybe David's Tabernacle.

Update: An article called The Byzantine Presence on The Temple Mount arguing for the Gihon Spring view is very misinformed and since fact checking it's claims I now doubt that Saint Sophia/Holy Wisdom was on the Temple Mount.

It once accuses a Wilson of wrongly conflating the Church of the Blessed Mary with the Nea Church of the Theotokos.  However it is in fact well known that both those names were used for the same Church.  Cyril of Scythoplis account of the Church's origin makes clear that Sabas's request was just of a Church for Saint Mary.  It was Justinian who took the prerogative of using the title Theotokos because of his agenda of trying to unify the Chalcedonian and Miaphysite churches while scapegoating the Nestorians.  Both this source and Procopius only refer to Justinian building one Marian Church, and none of this article's sources are aware of the Theotokos Church if they were indeed different.

The Saint Sophia Church is clearly near by and so I'm now thinking was maybe where the Armenian Church of the Archangels is with it's presumed trial location changing.  Carefully reading that article's own sources the "Stone" venerated here that Jesus stood on is clearly a smaller portable "stone" not something like what the Dome is built over.

I personally think the tradition of sealing off the East Gate began in the Byzantine era by Christians who felt it was time to fulfill Ezekiel 46:1 since Jesus had already entered at his Triumphal entry.

The Sequence of Events associated with The Parousia

The foundational premise of this blog, that the events of Revelation are chronological, they are presented as a clear sequence of events.  Is not based on saying all Prophecies are that way, but that Revelation is uniquely chronological because it's purpose is to REVEAL how everything else ties together.

In some cases the apparent chronology of events in other prophecies fit Revelation's fine.  In some cases where a dual fulfillment may be involved it could be the older prophet's sequence of events fits the near/local fulfillment more then it does the final Eschatological fulfillment.

It's mainly in the late 30s of Ezekiel where it looks like YHWH revealed things to that Prophet practically backwards if one of my theories about them is true.

But it is in particular when a lot of things seem to be happening very quickly over a relatively short period of time that it shouldn't be that difficult to get that the shorter briefer description is perhaps not as strictly chronological.  If someone came to you and said "man you won't believe all the crazy stuff that just went down at the corner" and then rapidly rambled a bunch of things you wouldn't be too surprised to find out the order of events as they first described them were slightly off.

And that is the case with The Parousia.

The word Parousia doesn't appear in Revelation, but the events associated with it when Jesus first defined it for us in Matthew 24:30-31 and later elaborated on by Paul in the Thessalonian Epistles and parts of 1 Corinthians 15, and has a lot of other even briefer references.  Clearly happens in Revelation starting in Chapter 11 Verse 15 and are finished by the end of chapter 14.  It is pretty clear to me that Revelation is far more concerned with the proper order of events.  Still I do believe they will all happen over the course of a few days at most and maybe less then an hour.

However pretty much every Futurist who disagrees with Pre-Trib founds that opposition on some clear timing statements in Matthew 24 and II Thessalonians 2 that place the "Abomination of Desolation" before any of the Parousia events.  But doesn't my chronological interpretation place that in the middle of the Parousia?

Strictly speaking The Abomination of Desolation is not in Revelation Chapter 13.  That chapter is about the deification of "The Beast" broadly speaking, and mentions an "Image" that it doesn't tie to any particular geographical location.  But there is no illusion to anything happening in specifically Jerusalem or any other city.

Paul associated the Man of Sin showing himself to be God in The Temple with his revealing.  I have already argued for the removal of restraint being in Revelation 9, and after that comes the first clear reference to The Beast in chapter 11 when he's described as ascending out of the Abyss and kills the Two Witnesses.  Chapter 13 is just his formal introduction.

"But didn't you just earlier this month make a post arguing the "Great City" of chapter 11 isn't Jerusalem?"

Again that was a post made for arguing rhetorically with Preterists and anyone else who thinks "Great City" must always be referring to the same city every time it's used.  If the name of Babylon doesn't prove anything geographically neither does being tied to the Crucifixion.

However I also no longer necessarily think the AoD has to happen in Jerusalem.  In fact I'm definitely coming to highly doubt a proper Third Temple will be built at all.  There are aspects of the Historicist interpretation of II Thessalonians 2 and Daniel 7 that make sense to me.

However I don't think it's already fulfilled by The Pope or even the Byzantine Emperors I've talked about playing devil's advocate with them.  It will be something unmistakable when it happens, in such a way that even if it happens nothing like how any of us expected we will still not doubt that it just happened when it does.

Maybe it'll happen in Jerusalem, maybe it'll involve a Third Temple, but what's important is it will not be debatable anymore once it happens, that's the key point of why Paul was bringing it up, it obviously hadn't happened yet, and if it obliviously hadn't happened yet then it hasn't happened yet now.

Or maybe the Son of Perdition being "revealed" is really when he kills the Witnesses in Revelation 11:7, given that is the first time Revelation is definitely indisputably referring to that individual.

Pre-Trib Imminence is argued for the same way Endless Torment is argued for

This hit me as I was listening to this Podcast from Chris White arguing agaisnt Imminence.
https://bibleprophecytalk.com/a-hopefully-more-clear-refutation-of-an-imminent-rapture/

I'm listening to how baffled he is at the way a verse just being about The Parusia at all is enough to make Pre-Tribbers label it a proof text for Imminence, when in fact there are passages that that refer to certain things clearly happening first.

I'm ironically sympathetic because Endless Torment is defended the same way.  When some traditional Christian just lists verses that "prove" the doctrine in a context where they won't be challenged on them.  What they give are mostly a list of verses showing that God will judge sinners, a couple where it might be necessary to argue what a certain Greek word means, but most of them don't even include that word.

There are Bible verses that show God's Punishments/Chastisements are for Correction, from Habakkuk 1:12 to Job 37:13 to Proverbs 3:11.  Jesus affirms in Matthew 5, Luke 12 and Matthew 18 that the punishment is till the price is paid.  Deuteronomy 29-30 to Hosea to Ezekiel 16 all show that God's judgments on Israel are to bring her to repentance and that even Sodom will be restored.  Malachi 3 says the fire of God is for purging and purification and promises the children of Jacob they will not be consumed.

To them that proof texting is what's inappropriately picking and choosing in ignorance of the grander context.  And again like how Pre-Tribbers approach their Imminence passages feeling like anything less then their most extreme interpretation is tantamount to rejecting the passage entirely.  And both groups apply the same tactic to how they struggle to claim as much support as they can from the Pre-Nicene fathers

Endless Torment is only more respectable then Pre-Trib because it's been around longer.  But Pre-Trib won't go away and so if the Age of Grace lasts long enough we'll reach a point where Pre-Trib has more antiquity then Endless Torment has now.  Endless Torment was not unambiguously taught by anyone not later condemned as a heretic before Augustine of Hippo who couldn't read Greek at all.

Chris White's Pre-Wrath view does believe in a very similar kind of Imminence, just that it doesn't become Imminent till after the Abomination of Desolation.  I believe it's Imminent after that but not in a "nothing specific happens first" sense but in a it happens immediately sense, 10 days at the absolute most and that is being generous.  The Pre-Wrath position is functionally the same as Partial Preterism and Historicism, they just think we are already in that point on the timeline between what must happen first and the Rapture.

Methodius of Olympus on The Man-Child being The Saints

I obviously don't agree with him entirely, my take on it is Semi-Dispensationalist with the Woman being Israel.  But it shows the idea of The Man-Child being Believers rather then Jesus has ancient even Pre-Nicene precedent.

This is from his Dialogue of The Ten Virgins, Thekla.  I'm copying chapters 5-8 for context but chapter 7 is the main argument.  And it makes arguments I didn't think of.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_Fathers/Volume_VI/Methodius/Banquet_of_the_Ten_Virgins/Thekla

Chapter V.—The Woman Who Brings Forth, to Whom the Dragon is Opposed, the Church; Her Adornment and Grace.

The woman who appeared in heaven clothed with the sun, and crowned with twelve stars, and having the moon for her footstool, and being with child, and travailing in birth, is certainly, according to the accurate interpretation, our mother, O virgins, being a power by herself distinct from her children; whom the prophets, according to the aspect of their subjects, have called sometimes Jerusalem, sometimes a Bride, sometimes Mount Zion, and sometimes the Temple and Tabernacle of God. For she is the power which is desired to give light in the prophet, the Spirit crying to her: “Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee. For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and His glory shall be seen upon thee. And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising. Lift up thine eyes round about, and see; all they gather themselves together, they come to thee: thy sons shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side.” It is the Church whose children shall come to her with all speed after the resurrection, running to her from all quarters. She rejoices receiving the light which never goes down, and clothed with the brightness of the Word as with a robe. For with what other more precious or honourable ornament was it becoming that the queen should be adorned, to be led as a Bride to the Lord, when she had received a garment of light, and therefore was called by the Father? Come, then, let us go forward in our discourse, and look upon this marvelous woman as upon virgins prepared for a marriage, pure and undefiled, perfect and radiating a permanent beauty, wanting nothing of the brightness of light; and instead of a dress, clothed with light itself; and instead of precious stones, her head adorned with shining stars. For instead of the clothing which we have, she had light; and for gold and brilliant stones, she had stars; but stars not such as those which are set in the invisible heaven, but better and more resplendent, so that those may rather be considered as their images and likenesses.

Chapter VI.—The Works of the Church, the Bringing Forth of Children in Baptism; The Moon in Baptism, the Full Moon of Christ’s Passion.

Now the statement that she stands upon the moon, as I consider, denotes the faith of those who are cleansed from corruption in the laver of regeneration, because the light of the moon has more resemblance to tepid water, and all moist substance is dependent upon her. The Church, then, stands upon our faith and adoption, under the figure of the moon, until the fulness of the nations come in, labouring and bringing forth natural men as spiritual men; for which reason too she is a mother. For just as a woman receiving the unformed seed of a man, within a certain time brings forth a perfect man, in the same way, one should say, does the Church conceive those who flee to the Word, and, forming them according to the likeness and form of Christ, after a certain time produce them as citizens of that blessed state. Whence it is necessary that she should stand upon the laver, bringing forth those who are washed in it. And in this way the power which she has in connection with the laver is called the moon, because the regenerate shine being renewed with a new ray, that is, a new light. Whence, also, they are by a descriptive term called newly-enlightened; the moon ever showing forth anew to them the spiritual full moon, namely, the period and the memorial of the passion, until the glory and the perfect light of the great day arise.

Chapter VII.—The Child of the Woman in the Apocalypse Not Christ, But the Faithful Who are Born in the Laver.

If any one, for there is no difficulty in speaking distinctly, should be vexed, and reply to what we have said: “But how, O virgins, can this explanation seem to you to be according to the mind of Scripture, when the Apocalypse plainly defines that the Church brings forth a male, while you teach that her labour-pains have their fulfilment in those who are washed in the laver?” We will answer, But, O faultfinder, not even to you will it be possible to show that Christ Himself is the one who is born. For long before the Apocalypse, the mystery of the Incarnation of the Word was fulfilled. And John speaks concerning things present and things to come. But Christ, long ago conceived, was not caught up to the throne of God when He was brought forth, from fear of the serpent injuring Him. But for this was He begotten, and Himself came down from the throne of the Father, that He should remain and subdue the dragon who made an assault upon the flesh. So that you also must confess that the Church labours and gives birth to those who are baptized. As the spirit says somewhere in Isaiah: “Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man-child. Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.” From whom did he flee? Surely from the dragon, that the spiritual Zion might bear a masculine people, who should come back from the passions and weakness of women to the unity of the Lord, and grow strong in manly virtue.

Chapter VIII.—The Faithful in Baptism Males, Configured to Christ; The Saints Themselves Christs.

Let us then go over the ground again from the beginning, until we come in course to the end, explaining what we have said. Consider if the passage seems to you to be explained to your mind. For I think that the Church is here said to give birth to a male; since the enlightened receive the features, and the image, and the manliness of Christ, the likeness of the form of the Word being stamped upon them, and begotten in them by a true knowledge and faith, so that in each one Christ is spiritually born. And, therefore, the Church swells and travails in birth until Christ is formed in us, so that each of the saints, by partaking of Christ, has been born a Christ. According to which meaning it is said in a certain scripture, “Touch not mine anointed,and do my prophets no harm,” as though those who were baptized into Christ had been made Christs by communication of the Spirit, the Church contributing here their clearness and transformation into the image of the Word. And Paul confirms this, teaching it plainly, where he says: “For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might by His Spirit in the inner man; that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith.” For it is necessary that the word of truth should be imprinted and stamped upon the souls of the regenerate.

I have a number of things I wanna post here before April is over, so brace yourself.

An Argument for Zion of Revelation 14 being Earthly Zion

First of all if you're seeing this as a complete reversal of a certain post I made earlier this month, that was a post directed at Preterists rhetorically assuming certain Preterist presuppositions.

In Revelation 14 I definitely believe the Parousia is already in progress.  And the only apparent smoking gun that this Zion must be in Heaven not on Earth is the 144 Thousand being "Before The Throne".  But remember Daniel 7:9-14 is the foundational Hebrew Bible source material for how Jesus defined the Parousia, and that passage seems to involve YHWH's flying Chariot-Throne.  It could be The Throne is The Cloud or on it.

Hebrews 12:22 is the other major New Testament basis for a "Heavenly Zion", though it's actually Jerusalem Paul calls Heavenly there.  Paul does sometimes use Heavenly as a synonym for Spiritual.  That passage is about how we are Citizens of The Kingdom regardless of where we dwell or who controls any Earthly location.  And also about how the architectural final form of the City is currently under construction in Heaven.  It doesn't contradict the connection to a Terrestrial location.

Psalm 48 can be seen as the Old Testament basis for a Heavenly Zion since it links Zion to the "sides of the north" a term also used in Isaiah 14 about Satan's yet future fall from heaven.  But I think the relation of geographical terms in both these passages may be complicated.  If The Tabernacle of David were located where I currently hypothesize it was then it was indeed on a slope north of The Mountain's Summit.  And "Sides of the north" is used in some translations of where Beth-Togarmah is located in Ezekiel 38.  Since I believe Isaiah 14 is about End Times events it could refer to Satan and The Beast wanting to set up their own Throne on Mt Zion which will ultimately fail.

I should perhaps mention here how I don't think Zion was the location most people think it was.  I have argued on this Blog that Bethlehem is the City of David.  My current theory is that the Summit of Mt Zion is where the Mar Elias Monastery currently sits which is the highest elevated summit in the region, and I have a hunch that the Tabernacle of David stood where the fifth century Church of Mary's Seat was located to the north of the summit.  But even if that theory is wrong my position on this chapter doesn't change.

And thus this view can be compatible no matter what city you think Babylon and/or The Great City is.

It is frequently assumed that the Mount of Olives is where Jesus will Return to.  Now it could be involved in how all this plays out.  But the Biblical basis for it is weak in my view.  In Acts 1 what the Angel says is about Jesus Returning the same way He Ascended, it's not meant to be about the location of a landing spot.  And I think a strong argument can be made that the Zechariah 12-14 was fulfilled in 30 AD.  Still it could be He returns first to the Mount of Olives to begin the Resurrection there and then sets up His Throne on Zion.

It is often assumed the reference to "Heaven Opened" in Revelation 19 means a door opening in heaven and that the Rider on the White Horse and His Army are traveling from heaven to earth at that moment.  But that's not necessarily borne out by the text either.

Earlier in Revelation 11 a reference to Heaven being "shut up" is agreed by all to be a reference to it not raining, showing how the Witnesses echo the ministry of Elijah and using language from 1 Kings 8:35, 2 Chronicles 6:26 and 7:17.  In Genesis 7-8 the Windows of Heaven being Opened is terminology linked to the flood waters.  So this Terminology in Revelation 19 could be linked to the "latter rain" of Joel 2, or 2 Peter 3 talking about how the End Times Judgment will echo The Flood but with Fire instead of Water.  But I also now believe the ministry of the Witnesses is the same 1260 days as the Woman hiding in the Wilderness, so Heaven being Opened in Revelation 19 is the end of their shutting up of heaven.

This further proves the point that both Pre-Tribers and Post-Tribers are wrong on Revelation 19 being in any way the Second Coming, this is happening after He's already Returned.

My belief in The Man-Child being The Church means I see The Rapture as a second fulfillment of many Prophecies that were also about the Birth of Christ, like Micah 4 and 5.

The Kingdoms of The World are Become The Kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ

This statement made right after the Seventh Trumpet sounds is why Post-Tribbers and others who want to play around with the Chronology of Revelation think the Seventh Trumpet can't sound till right when The Millennium begins.

Last year I made a post arguing for The Last Trumpet being the Yom Kippur Jubilee Trumpet.

The Jubilee Trumpet doesn't actually sound when the Jubilee begins, it sounds about six months earlier on Yom Kippur to announce the coming Jubilee Year.

This could become an argument for a Mid Seventh year Rapture view, or we could argue in this typpological context one half year become three and a half years.

The Parusia events do happen to start happening immediately.  But the full realization of Christ taking over the World is still yet future.

The Souls of them that were Beheaded

The use of the word "Souls" in Revelation 20 verse 4 is the linchpin of the argument of those who want to claim at least the First Resurrection isn't a literal bodily one but merely a spiritual Resurrection.

The thing is there are plenty of verses in the New Testament where "souls" is used and yet the "souls" in question are definitely still attached to living bodies.

Acts 2:41 referring to three thousand souls, Acts 7:14 referring to three score and fifteen souls, Acts 14:22 is an example that doesn't involve counting, Acts 27:37 referring to the number of souls on those ships.  1 Peter 3:20 refers to the number of souls on Noah's Ark. And there is Hebrew Bible precedent for it going back to Genesis 12:5, the very first time "souls" plural appears in the King James Version.

You might argue that this usage in Revelation is parallel to Revelation 6:9, the souls of Martyrs under the Altar when the Fifth Seal is opened, where only Pre-Tribbers argue the Bodily Resurrection of believers had already happened.

But to me that's the point, the word Resurrection isn't used in the vicinity of that reference nor is anything else said to imply it's already happened.  The Seventh Trumpet is when we're first told that now is the time for the judgment of the dead.  These verses of Revelation 20 are the last phase of the First Resurrection.   So Revelation 6 and 7 show that Souls simply having some kind of conciseness on their own isn't a Resurrection, at least not in how this book uses that term.

I will say that the mere use of the word Souls in the Fifth Seal account should not be used as an argument agaisnt Pre-Trib, they'll just point to Revelation 20.

The thing is even if I were to concede the possibility that these Saints are ruling with Christ in Heaven not on Earth, which I will admit nothing in the immediate context contradicts.  Jesus wasn't seated at the Right Hand of The Father till after His Resurrection, He was in no way reigning between Crucifixion and Resurrection,  So if even Jesus needs a Risen Body to reign then so do the Saints.

The Sign of The Son of Man in Heaven

One of the arguments Pre-Tribbers have for separating Matthew 24's Parusia from the Parusia of Paul in I Thessalonians 4, I Corinthians 15 and II Thessalonians 2 is that the Resurrection isn't in Matthew 24.

Now my main response to this in the past had been that none of the Rapture passages include everything that happens at that time.  1 Corinthians 15 is agreed to be a Rapture passage by most Pre-Tribbers and yet it technically doesn't mention the Rapture (us being gathered in the clouds) at all.

However a chief argument of those of us who definitely see them as the same Parusia is that Matthew 24 is the focal point of this doctrine.  Jesus here brings together Hebrew Bible themes that weren't obviously directly connected before, and then Paul and Revelation are building on Jesus when they are referring to these same ideas.

Separately I've been unsure what to think of "The Sign of the Son of Man in Heaven".  Does it correlate to the Ark being seen in the Temple in heaven after the Seventh Trumpet?  Is it the Wonders that open Revelation 12 which I also connect to the Signs in the Sun, Moon and Stars of Luke 21?  I'm willing to bet someone in history has tried to apply to it Constantine's claimed Milvian Bridge vision.

Then I decided to see if studying how Jesus spoke of signs elsewhere could be helpful.  And indeed earlier in this same Gospel in chapter 12 Jesus makes clear the ONLY sign that will be given to a wicked and adulteress generation is the Sign of the Prophet Jonah.  For as Jonah was in the Ketos three days and three nights so shall the Son of Man be in the Heart of The Earth three days and three nights.

Now every Christian agrees the Resurrection is implicitly the point here, someone being dead for three days isn't unusual, it's them not being dead anymore that is the Sign.  Jesus' Resurrection was the Sign given to that generation.  But the generation that sees the Parousia will also be a wicked and adulteress generation.

It should also be understood that no Jews see the Son of Man in Daniel 7 as a specifically Messianic Title, they see Him as being Humanity as a whole in our restored state.  In my view this does not contradict the New Testament's usage of it as a title for Jesus, it is in Jesus that Humanity's Redemption from the fall is achieved, it is in Him that The Resurrection began, The Parousia is when it expands to include all of The Church after the Millennium it will expand further to include all of Humanity.

So The Sign of The Son of Man in Heaven is the Bodily Risen Saints ascending into Heaven/The Sky.

Revelation was written to Seven Churches in Asia

70 AD Preterists make the argument in terms of time period that the book must have been for the people who first read it, yet they don't apply that geographically.  If you're going to downgrade the scale of Revelation to not being the entire world but just a local region, then it should be about the region it was written to.  After all Revelation 22:16 says in the Greek and the YLT "these things concerning the Churches".

But Preterists are blind on that fact.  In response to my sharing of my last post on Facebook someone basically mused to themselves why it was written to these churches when it's obviously about Jerusalem???????

I was watching more videos from one of those Partial Preterists, and I began to notice another way in which preterists are oddly exactly like Pre-Trib Dispensationalists.  They can't wrap their heads around the idea of Revelation not being about the same geographical region most of the Old Testament is about, utterly ignoring everything prior New Testament books taught us about how now The Temple is The Church, now the true Holy City or Beloved City is the community of believers not a specific geographical piece of land, what Hebrews taught about the true Jerusalem and Zion being the heavenly one.

They get all those doctrines for how they apply to the present of course.  Their problem is they push back to 70 AD the spiritual changes that happened in 30 AD.  Jesus said the Law and the Prophets were until John (referring to The Baptist), Paul said we were already in the Age of Grace in Galatians written before 62 AD, Stephen was stoned for teaching God already doesn't dwell in a Temple made by human hands.  You see in Christian theology the physical destruction of the Temple is an after thought, a foot note, it was spiritually rendered null and void on The Pentecost of 30 AD at the latest.

Revelation only mentions Jerusalem by name when referring to New Jerusalem, and only says Zion of a location that is seemingly in Heaven in chapter 14.  I just made a post on The Great City.  These preterists don't take as literal geography things that point to Mesopotamia like Babylon and the Euphrates, but any excuse to say this is obviously Jerusalem in Judea they will cling to.

The Temple in chapter 11 is always referring to The Temple in Heaven, it exists in the context of what was just going on in chapter 10, the Angel who speaks about the Witnesses is that Angel, and at the end of the chapter we're explicitly told The Temple in Heaven is the one who's Ark is seen.  Likewise chapters 21-22 clarify that The Holy City is New Jerusalem, which is still in Heaven during the prior chapters.  New Jerusalem's size if you take it literally is large enough that if you put it's center at terrestrial Jerusalem it would encompass the entire region of the Seven Churches.  And Philadelphia is promised to be a Pillar in The Temple of New Jerusalem.

A lot of imagery and terminology later in the book is drawing back on things in the specific messages to the Seven Churches.  Satan's Seat is first in Pergamon but later becomes the Seat of The Beast, fitting it being the center of the Imperial Cult and Apollo's Seat in The Iliad where Aeneas mortal wound was healed.

At this point I feel like doing what I've sometimes done with Historicism, and play devil's advocate for what a proper Preterist interpretation of Revelation should look like.

We could begin within a century of when Revelation was written and look at Alexander The False Prophet, a person who's life was fictionalized by Lucian.  He was based in Asia Minor, he made an Idol of Aeskleius called Glycon that he made it appear to be speaking.  And he was the real driving force behind Christian persecutions that happened during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, Aurelius himself actually tried to oppose the persecution of the Christians.  As interesting as that is it won't fully hold up.

The truth is the only real Great Persecution Christians faced under Pagan Rome was the Diocletian Persecution which was really masterminded by Galerius.  Early Nicene Christians simply started imagining the intensity of that Persecution into the entire Pre-Milvean Bridge era.  We have ancient sources testifying that many Apostatized during this persecution, which is why Donatism was an issue after it ended so that can be the Apostacy of II Thessalonians 2.  It also lased exactly 10 years from February of 303 to February of 313 which means you could apply a Day=Year theory application to the ten days of persecution alluded to in the message to Smyrna.

Then Constantine rose to power in 311-313 and virtually overnight the Empire went from trying to annihilate Christians to being ruled by one.  This era is when Post-Millennial and Partiral Preterist interpretations of Prophecy rose in popularity, with Constantinople being founded to serve as a New Jerusalem in addition to a New Rome, it's original main church was the Hagia Irene, Holy Peace, Irene is basically the Greek translation of Salem.

The region of the Seven Churches remained firmly in Eastern Roman/Byzantine control long past when most of the empire fell to the Ishmaelites, nor did they fall under Latin control after the Fourth Crusade, they remained firmly in the Greek Empire of Nicaea.  However in 1308 is when this region fell under Muslim Turkish control.  So for this region it was about exactly a Thousand Years of Christianity being the politically dominant religion allowing you to argue we are now in verse 8 or 9 of chapter 20.

However that was rhetorical, my view of State Sponsored Christianity is more amendable to Historicism then it is to Post-Millennialism.

The Latest Date for The Book of Revelation

I am about to settle the matter of a late date for the writing of Revelation in a way that even my fellow Futurists might not like since I now believe it was even later then the reign of Domitian.  But this view could be compatible with Preterism if you left the 70 AD obsession in favor of the real Desolation of Classical Israel.

Objectors may object that I'm making it too late to be legitimately Apostolic.  I don't see it that way of course.  Quadratus of Athens in his apology to Hadrian written for Hadrian's visit to Athens in 124 or 125 AD says that some of those healed and risen from the dead by Jesus were still alive at that time.  Today it is verified as being possible to live to 122, and I as a Creationist believes what humans can live to has deteriorated not increased over the millennia.  Pliny using documents related to a Roman Census of 74 AD says in one region of Italy there were many people who were over 100, 4 were 130 and some up to 140.  So I have no doubt that in Judea some people born BC lived through the Bar Kochba Revolt and that some people who were healed by Jesus and then witnessed Him Risen made it even into the reign of Antonius Pius.

The responsibility for keeping the Canon pure is The Holy Spirit's not Man's, it would not have been allowed to become universally accepted by Churches in every region if it wasn't the True Word of God.  Eusebius of Caesarea had to acknowledge that it was universally accepted even though he was personally biased against it.

The oldest reference to the existence of Revelation is Justin Martyr.

Dialogue with Trypho 81.4 "And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place."

Why does this quote make me think he's referring to something still very recent?  Because he's not even aware of there being a book, just that the vision happened, as if the text of the book proper still hadn't left the region of those seven cities but the gist of the message had spread by word of mouth.

The Message to Pergamon refers to a Martyr there named Antipas.  The traditions about Antipas say he was cooked alive in the Red Bull of the Serapion.  The Serapion of Pergamon was a second century structure, like the Temple to Trajan it was a project probably started during Trajan's reign but finished under Hadrian.  Now in a prior post about Pergamon I simply considered this a reason that detail of the tradition must be wrong, since I as this post itself shows don't inherently trust traditions.  However there is another factor to consider.

As I pointed out in the post on The Roma Cult it is not a coincidence both references to Martyrdom in Revelation 2-3 are the two cities that were centers of the imperial cult in the province.  In those cities everyone was required to offer sacrifices to the Emperor, nothing else about the religious views of an individual mattered.  Jews were exempted because the Romans recognized them as an ancient religion, and during the first century Christianity was still a sect of Judaism.

Even if you believe the mythology about the Neornian Persecution that was a brief persecution that didn't effect people outside Rome.  The Policy that lead to the systemic Christian Martyrdoms alluded to in Revelation 2-3 didn't begin till during the reign of Trajan, that's what the correspondence with Pliny The Younger was all about.  But Pliny was governor in Bithynia, our oldest confirmation this was going on in the province of Asia was during the reign of Hadrian when Gaius Minicis Fundanus was governor there.

In Polycarp's letter to the Philippians he seems to claim Smyrna didn't have a Christian community during the lifetime of Paul. Preterists have attempted to explain this as only meaning not when Paul was in Philippi.  But what I find interesting is the inclusion of Polycarp in the letter Polycrates of Ephesus wrote to Bishop Victor of Rome. His intention in the letter is to claim that these communities had been practicing Passover how they currently were from the beginning, so I feel it's logical to deduce that at least the first name associated with each city was a founder of that Christian community.  Meaning Polycarp himself may have founded the Church in Smyrna, and his birth is popularly estimated to have been 69 AD.

"But we know Ephesus wasn't founded by the people Polycrates associated with it because of Acts 18-20" you may object.  That original Ephesian Christian community I think was driven out of the city and dwelt in Melitos and Polycrates was citing the origins of the second Ephesian church.  I think Paulian communities generally took the opposing position on Passover because of how Paul stressed the Resurrection's link to First Fruits, hence Rome being who Polycrates was trying to convince.  That's also why he couldn't cite Pergamon/Troy and Thyatira as being with them on this, they were also Paulian.

Neither Smyrna, Sardis or Philadelphia are mentioned by name anywhere in Acts or in the letters of Paul, technically neither is Pergamon but I suspect Pergamon could have been the place Paul and Luke called Troy.  Meanwhile Laodicea and Hierapolis are mentioned by Paul only in letters I personally believe he wrote after the point when traditionalists claim he died.  Basically the letters Secular Scholars think Paul didn't write I think were written between 70-100 AD.

In the ongoing debate between if Revelation was written during Domitian or Nero's reign.  The Nero proponents may have numbers on their side, yes seemingly more sources said it was Nero (and some Claudius).  But Domitian advocates have antiquity on their side, Irenaeus is the first person to ever directly say anything about the when of Revelation's writing at all.

Thing is Irenaeus and Tertullian are already of the era when John son of Zebedee, the John who wrote Revelation, John the Presbyter, and the Beloved Disciple were all being conflated together by "patristic" tradition, I'm convinced those are 4 separate individuals one of whom was not named John, so by this point the "Early Church Fathers" are already fundamentally untrustworthy to me on this issue.  

Regardless it is of note that Irenaeus also said this John lived into the reign of Trajan.  And given the argument Preterists make about Irenaeus saying John being "last seen" during the reign of Domitian, he could have meant it was then he left for "Patmos" and the vision happened later.  Indeed his point in context is the recentness of the vision, so Domitian as the bare earliest date is in fact what makes most sense.

I think there was inevitably a desire of some to make Revelation older then it was, partly for concern that it's actual date was too young to be valid.  And in time as Origenists and Augustinians wanted to promote Post-Millennial and Prerterist interpretations of the book to force it back to the time of Nero.  So there is not a single "patristic" source I will consider a pure unbiased witness here.

I also currently believe the Nicolaitans were those promoting the Monarchical Church structure first truly popularized by "Ignatius".  I do not view it as a First Century problem at all.  Nothing the "Patristics" say on the Nicolaitans can be trusted because they WERE the Nicolaitans but in denial of that fact.

I would not consider it impossible that "The Tyrant" in some references might have originally been not a Roman Emperor at all but Simon Bar-Kochba who's persecution of Christians is witnessed in a contemporary source, Justin Martyr's apology to Hadrian.  Thing is I'm not convinced the reference to "Patmos" in chapter 1 is claiming a legal "exile" at all.

Futurists cite Cassius Dio as secular evidence Domitian was exiling people to Islands.  But this was for enemies who were Roman Aristocrats or at least citizens.  Of course if my theory that John Mark was John of Patmos is true then the name Marcus implies he was a Roman citizen.  While people exiled by Domitian were allowed to return as soon as he died, John may have chosen to continue witnessing Jesus to the natives of this island.  My hunch is John Mark was in Jerusalem for the spring feasts of 30 AD but probably not (by modern standards at least) an adult yet and so born between 10 and 20 AD.

In conclusion I think The Revelation was written down sometime in the reign of Hadrian.  If you still think the Sixth King of chapter 11 has contemporary with when John had the vision then Hadrian can be consider a 6th Emperor if you consider Vespasian's rise in the Year of the Four Emperors a sort of reboot.

The Great City where our Lord was Crucified

So I'm changing my position on the Great City issue slightly.  Jerusalem is only unambiguously called the "Great City" in Revelation 21 where it's New Jerusalem (and in some ancient manuscripts it's not used there, but I'm a Textus Receptus proponent so I'm not gonna place any eggs in that basket).  I am currently for now going to take the position that in Revelation 6-20 the only Great City is the same city called Babylon.

Preterism has been associated with both Babylon=Rome and Babylon=Jerusalem, but for both Full and Partial the Jerusalem theory has become the far more common standard, because Rome wasn't destroyed in 70 AD, it had a fire in 64 but even tradtions claim they didn't start Persecuting Christians till after that so it being a judgment for being drunk on the blood of the martyrs doesn't make sense.

The face value issue with making Jerusalem as Babylon work in a 66-70 AD context is "how can Jerusalem be said to ride the beast" since they still believe the beast is the Roman Empire and in particular Nero.  Well what you could do is take what Josephus tells us about Poppaea Sabina, how she was practically a proselyte and so under her influence Nero was favorable to the Jews and it was months after her death the Jewish revolt begins to break out.  I haven't seen any Preterist use Poppaea this way yet, it's a suggestion I'm giving them out of my magnanimous generosity.

The problem is the Symbolism of Revelation clearly only works with Babylon being Rome in a First Century context.  There is no Biblical support for calling Jerusalem a City on Seven Hills but Rome had that concept as part of it's self identity from the beginning.

I am a Futurist in my basic understanding of Revelation (technically I've come to a historicist understanding of the Seals and am open to that for the first four Trumpets, but Chapter 9 is definitely yet future).  But I do think we need to begin decoding Revelation by understanding what these symbols and imagery would have meant to the initial audience, which were mostly Greek speaking Christians in Asia Minor between 40 and 140 AD.

So while I do believe the final eschatological Babylon is not Rome in the sense of being geographically on the Tiber River of the Italian Peninsula.  If things were going to play out within the lifetime of the original readers, then Babylon=Rome is what the symbolism of the Book was pointing them towards, as I talked about in the post on the Roma Cult.

Among both Preterists and Futurists it's assumed Revelation 11:8 can only be Jerusalem, and so that's the smoking gun that terrestrial Jerusalem is the Great City at least sometimes.

"And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified."

As I've said a few times before, no view on Revelation is free from some level of picking and choosing when to interpret symbolically and when to interpret literally.  In this case however it's within one statement.  We're specifically told the these are things it's called Spiritually but interpreters keep applying that only to the "Sodom and Egypt" part while "where also out Lord was crucified" is taken as a literal geographic indicator.

Number 1, strictly speaking the literal location of the Crucifixion was not in a city at all, John 19 says "near to the city" and Hebrews 13 says "without the gate".  That is semantics you can object, it's definitely associated with Jerusalem, but that still makes it less then strictly literal.

Number 2, what city is actually responsible for the Crucifixion?  

Legally speaking it was Rome, right in the Apostles' Creed we say "Crucified under Pontius Pilate" and Rome was pretending to still be a Republic at this time, so Pilate was theoretically representing the people of Rome.  And even the "Jews" calling for His Crucifixion said "we have no King but Caesar" they pledged their loyalty to Rome.  It was Roman Soldiers who mocked him and placed a Crown of Thrones on His head, Crucifixion was a standard Roman form of Execution. In ancient mindsets a City was more then just a location, it was also it's people.  Fortunately for everyone involved Jesus said "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".

But neither of those is my main argument.  Because I know everyone is going to list off Old Testament prophets who called Jerusalem both Sodom and Egypt as further proof this verse can only mean Jerusalem.  But Jerusalem was spiritually called Sodom and Egypt for a reason, there was a specific sin in mind which plenty of other cities/nations have been guilty of.

When YHWH was telling the Israelites to not be cruel to the strangers(immigrants and refugees) living among them, He reminded them "because you were once strangers in the land of Egypt".  Ezekiel 16, Jesus himself, and if you add them to your Canon both Jubilees and Jasher all clarify Sodom's Sin was their cruelty to strangers, an issue I talk about more on my other blog.  Ezekiel 16 is the main basis for Jerusalem being spiritually Sodom because there YHWH says Jerusalem has become worse then Sodom.

And that basic moral sin is also a factor in why the Pharisees wanted Jesus killed, because he taught that many Gentiles will enter the Kingdom before some of the Children of The Kingdom.

Rome had this Sin in it's own way, a refusal to properly allow full citizenship to "Barbarians" who'd proven their loyalty was a repeated issue, just watch this YouTube video.  And this way of thinking effected even the believers in Rome which is partly what Paul's epistle to the Romans is addressing.

This of course is among the Roman traits that makes America the most Roman nation of the modern world.  But perhaps it can also apply pretty well to Putin's Russia, even Soviet Russia had it's xenophobic tendencies.

There is a third city involved in Ezekiel 16, Samaria representing Ephraim. I have a post on this blog arguing for Rome being Ephraim in a sense, I'm not longer as interested in arguing for that literally genealogically as I was when I first wrote it, but thematically it can still be interesting because of the role Paul's Epistle to Rome plays in it.  

Rome also tied themselves to Egypt when Octavian took over the Pharaonic Worship in Egypt, and a Temple to Isis in Rome played a role in Titus's Triumph celebrating his capture of Jerusalem.  So Egyptian Spirituality was present in Rome when Jesus was Crucified not in Jerusalem.

Victorious Eschatology

My past posts on preterism have typically had Full Preterism in mind.  Patrial Preterism I assume comes in a variety of forms, in theory so could Full Preterism.  I had been struggling to even find information on Partial Preterism even though one Futurist website I visited said most preterists are partial preterists.

Then I heard about the book Victorious Eschatology and found some YouTube videos from one of it's authors.  This form of Partial Preterism is, as I expected, basically Post Millennialism in terms of Revelation, but with an odd detail I'll get to later.

On Matthew 24, verse 34 is his cut off point, by 70 AD the first 34 verses are fulfilled and what's after is yet future.  This is a nonsensical cut off point, it is obvious to any unbiased observer that what follows this verse is about the same thing that proceeded it.  In fact after verse 34 it's mostly poetic idioms and parables.

When talking about "this generation shall not pass" he mentioned some futurists argue "generation" means "race" or "tribe".  I kind of assumed that was a straw man especially as he refuted it with how this Greek word is never used that way.  I've generally gone with how the Greek Grammar of "this" is clearly meant to be understood in the context of those who see the signs he just talked about.  But then I noticed how the Aramaic Peshita says Sharbtha, a word that absolutely means tribe or family and only very rarely means "generation".  I am possibly going to make a post on my other blog where I'll argue for Peshita Primacy for Matthew.  But what Jesus was actually speaking was certainly a Semitic language not Greek.  Now the ecclesialogical implications of what "tribe" is meant I don't wanna get into here, but either way it hasn't passed away yet.

Back on topic.  Preterists and Futurists both like to talk about the "three fold question" of Matthew 24:3.  Thing is the grammatical structure of that verse is clearly presenting it as only two questions, so yes the Disciples may have had what Jesus recently said about The Temple in their mind when they said "Tell us when these things will be", but when they said "and what is the sign of Your coming, and the end of the age", the Parusia and the end of the age are clearly the same thing, the expression is one sign or set of signs that herald both.  The Parusia is by definition the end of the Age of Grace.  The Age of the Law had already ended with John The Baptist.

So if you're going to hinge your "partial" Preterism on saying two of these happen at the same time but the other is separated, those two are the inseparable ones.

Now what I think in regards to Matthew's Olvite Discourse is that the Disciples were assuming all of this will happen at the same time when they asked this question, or at least hoping they will.  The "beginning of sorrows" comment is not in Luke 21's discourse (which wasn't on the mount of olives) even though it describes the circumstances associated with that term.

So the Beginnings of Sorrows are events that can be associated with 66-73 AD (though not unique to then), but Jesus is saying that when that happens the end is not yet.  Matthew 24 talks about persecutions that are not Jewish in origin and clearly says not till The Gospel is proclaimed to the whole world.  This author abuses verses from Romans and Colossians to say Paul was saying the Gospel had reached the entire world, Paul's intent in each of those (however flawed the translation) is about this being a process he is a part of.

They have a tendency to act like Futurists don't think 70 AD was predicted at all.  I indeed see 70 AD in more Prophecies then most Futurists do, Luke in particular records multiple prophecies Jesus made on that destruction.

Now we get to the clincher, which is the real divergence from Full Preterism.  He says Matthew 24 isn't about the Second Coming, as in it isn't the same thing as the Parusia of 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4.  This is the Pre-Tribulationist argument all over again.  Everything Paul says about eschatology in the Thessalonian Epistles is his commentary on the Olivite Discourse, Matthew's Gospel was the first written down and I believe it and Mark's were both written down before the events of Acts 13.

When Paul is talking about Him Coming in the Clouds and Gathering His people after a heavenly Trumpet sounds, he is referring back to this teaching of Jesus that every Christian knew about whether it was written down already or not.  Matthew 24 seemingly doesn't explicitly refer to the Resurrection of the dead, but Jesus is basically quoting Old Testament passages about the in-gathering of the Tribes of Israel and Ezekiel 37 already told us to associate that with the Bodily Resurrection of dead Israelites, and Isaiah 26 told us to associate The Resurrection with The Rapture.

I then watched another Partial Preterist talk about Revelation 20.  He says that John didn't mention The Rapture, but if he did it would have to happen before fire comes down from Heaven.  He believes we're currently between verses 6 and 7 and that what first starts happening in verse 7 is mostly spiritual realm stuff not noticeable on Earth.  This makes them functionally the same as the Pre-Trib Imminence Doctrine, no prophesied events between now and The Rapture.

A Post Millennial Rapture is just as incompatible with that nonsense as a Pre Millennial one.  If it's in Revelation 20 but Post-Mil then it obviously happens at the Bodily Resurrection of The Dead.  I made a post before about how Full Preterists are like Pre-Trib in terms of it being a Secret Rapture.  But this Patrial Preterism is what's truly teaching literally the same idea in terms of what The Church should expect to happen next.

Now back to the Author of Victorious Eschatology, the title of the book reflects how he really wants to promote this as an Optimistic view.  Yes all Christians think Jesus wins in the end but since he isn't predicting things to get worse before Jesus comes back he's telling believers to stop being so fearful.  He seems to not know Pre-Trib exists and that most American Futurists are Pre-Trib.

I don't want Christians to live in constant fear, but Jesus warns us to be prepared for tribulation, we still live a fallen world and sometimes things will go bad whether it's a specific fulfillment of Bible Prophecy or not.  What I as a Mid-Tirbber think must happen before the Parousia/Rapture may not from a secular material point of view need to even be that much worse then right now, the point is something very specific has to happen first.  Great Tribulation as a technical term I view as referring to what's been going on since Stephen was stoned, most of the Body of Christ is living in countries where they are not the mainstream majority religion.  And the "Falling away" is arguably similarly already covered.

The "Antichrist" will become the worst tyrant ever, but the phase of his career that precedes the Abomination will I think possibly be beneficial to "The Church" from terrestrial eyes.  And what happens in Revelation 9 believers are promised protection from.

I'm promising neither the worst or the best in terms of what will happen between now and the Parousia, my advice is to prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

Believe it or not I try not to get into my Soterology too much on this blog, I want what I talk about here to be potentially appealing to people who will never agree with it.  I mentioned it perhaps unnecessarily in "why was Jesus rejected" and on one Facebook group that indeed became a distraction from the post's main point.

But if the Optimism of your view is the selling point, and you're repeatedly criticizing Futurism as inherently Pessimistic.  Then with me you don't have a leg to stand on if in your view Death and Hades win even one single soul.