Matthew 24 addresses a 1st century Jewish audience. All its prophesies were fulfilled by AD 70.

Let us respond to Pro's rebuttal/response to rebuttal from round 5. Round 2 The purpose of the Seal Judgments is irrelevant to evaluate whether they literally occurred in 70 AD. The Great Tribulation Pro does not argue 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust was worse than the 1.1 million Jews killed in 70 AD. He attempts to explain how it could not be the great Tribulation, to which I would agree. However, if 70 AD is the Great Tribulation, then the Holocaust should not be worse. All life wiped out?Pro uses a figurative meaning for “earth”, while using a literal meaning for “sword”. He has not responded to other instances where “earth” is used in which ‘land’ would make no sense. Con’s interpretation is inconsistent. Plus, is it possible all life could be wiped out by a sword? I submit ‘no’. Audience Relevance Pro states Jews were the ‘primary’ audience, but I am not sure how he sees Gentiles as being any part of the audience if the judgment was only for Jews. This would seem to suggest Gentiles are being held to a standard without consequences while Jews must be held accountable for the same actions. “I pointed out to Con that the time of Jesus’ 2nd Coming was partly in response to Old Covenant sanctions. Con has not addressed this claim.” The parables of Matthew 25 illustrate how Gentiles and Jews will both be judged at the second coming. I covered this in round two. Round 3 As I pointed out earlier, the proposed immediate fulfillment of the Olivet discourse in 70 AD did not happen. I have shown many ways the prophecy was not fulfilled in the time frame Pro asserts. If Pro continues to demand Jesus meant an immediate (instead of an imminent) fulfillment, then he forces Jesus to be wrong. Signs of his coming We know Jesus ascended to Heaven in full view of the disciples. If he were not visible, then how could a cloud obscure him from their view? Acts 1:9 says Jesus will return just as he left. Pro has provided no one who witnessed Jesus’ return in 70 AD. End of the Age 1 John 3 8 the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. According to 1 John, if there is sin, the devil exists. There is still sin. The devil exists. …and since we know the Everlasting Kingdom will only exist after Satan has been destroyed, we know we are not part of it. The Law It is not a matter of the sacrifice no longer being necessary. Jesus met and continues to meet the need demanded by the law, he did not abolish the law just as he stated in Matthew 5:17 Point one - AD 70 “Con said futurists hold ‘this generation’ to be the one that would see the tribulation yet Con has said he believes ‘this generation’ references to the 1st century Jews (in other dialog). Which? Con is flipping and flopping? He equates “this generation” with “that" generation whatever “that" generation is. Does Con know?” Pro has not addressed my point in regard to ”this generation”, and has attempted to distract from the arguments presented in this debate. Point Four – Covenants I will not deny there is apocalyptic language in Isa 13, but apocalyptic language refers to the end times. Since the apocalypse has not come, I believe it is safe to say, this prophecy of the end times has not occurred. Plus, some verses are clearly meant to be taken literally: Isaiah 13 15 Anyone who is found will be thrust through, And anyone who is captured will fall by the sword. There were many captives, and they were released by decree of Cyrus. [1] The capture of Babylon in 539BC does not fulfill Isaiah 13. Missionaries to the world This speaks to the omniscience of god, and not to the understanding of any audience. Pro is attempting to limit the god of the Bible in order that his interpretation may be valid. Round 4 Ambiguous Ireneaus? I encourage the readers to read Pro’s sources on this [2]. They assert “tyrant” must refer to “Nero”, when it could just as easily have been applied to Domitian. Domitian was known to persecute Christians just as Nero. To suggest the early church fathers were supporting Pro’s preferred interpretation of Iraneaus by conveniently and spuriously interpreting their words, is at best ad hoc, if not completely dishonest. In addition to this, Pro asserts my argument hinges on the testimony of Ireneaus, but in actuality, it makes no difference to my case when Revelation was written. The futurist interpretation is still valid even if Revelation was written much earlier. On the other hand, if Revelation was written after 70 AD (which is the accepted time frame by scholars), then Pro’s case completely and utterly self-implodes. Nero as the AntiChrist? I have already addressed most of this in regard to Ireneaus, but I wanted to respond to Pro’s explanation of ‘beast’. He suggests the “beast” referred to in Revelation could be “specific or generic”, but also asserts the “Earliest Christian writers connect […] some Roman Emperor with the apocalyptic Beast”. Pro is attempting to blur the definition of Beast in Revelation. The Beast (the one we have been discussing) is the AntiChrist, not a vague wild animal. Also, as to some connecting the AntiChrist to authority figures, this still happens to this day. Nero may be one of the first, but he is part of an ever growing list of suggestions. Measuring the temple Pro states, “You can’t measure something that does not exist.” However, in 573 BC when Ezekiel ‘measured a temple’ one did not exist. In fact, based on the dimensions, Ezekiel’s temple has never existed, it is thought his temple is the future Millennial Temple. (Ezekiel 40-44) If Jesus has returned… a) "Con assumes a lot, that this 1000 year period is literal in length. [18]” Pro questions the Millennial Kingdom should be 1000 years. We have other examples where a specific time frame was given, and the prophecy comes to fruition exactly as predicted. For instance, in Gen 15:13-14, God tells Abram his seed would be strangers in a land that was not theirs for 400 years. The seed of Abram ended their journey 430 years after they began, and the message was given to Abram 30 years after the wandering began - 400 years exactly. If we are to consider the prophecy concerning Abram to be valid, then we must consider it as an example of how God works. Therefore, I do not consider a 1000 year reign to be a figurative description since a specific time frame was given. i) The verses I quoted from Zechariah reference the Millennial Kingdom, not a Jerusalem of the past. ii) Pro asserts the Millennial Kingdom will be in heaven, but he provided no support from scripture as I have. b) First, according to the Moody Biblical commentary and others sources [3], Gog and Magog are symbolic. If Pro is an acknowledged expert on Biblical Studies, I will be happy to concede the point. Otherwise, I will accept the educated opinion of experts. i) Secondly, if the new covenant is spiritual, then why did Jesus need to literally die for the literal sins of mankind? Wouldn’t his spiritual death have been sufficient? ii) Pro asserts the Eternal Kingdom will be in Heaven, but he has not acknowledged the verse from Rev 21 I provided, which states ‘God will dwell among men’. What Pro left out: Time of the Gentiles cannot be 42 months when related to 70AD Nero’s reign was not 42 months. Nero did not establish a covenant with Israel. An explanation/historical account how the Abomination of Desolation occurred in the temple. The Syriac version of Revelation rebuttal. Earth as ‘land’ inconsistency. Could life have been wiped out in 70 AD (with a sword)? The Holocaust was worse than the ‘Great Tribulation’ (70 AD)? Conclusion I have shown how the Second Coming literally could not have happened in 70 AD. Pro has not provided any historical evidence to support his case. Using a common interpretation of Revelation and the Olivet Discourse, I have illustrated the presence of sin in our world excludes the possibility of the return of Jesus. Pro utilizes a vague inconsistent interpretation of the Olivet discourse, and of Revelation itself. I would like to thank Pro for instigating this debate, and I look forward to future debates with Peter. If you (the reader) have made it this far, I thank you, and encourage you to vote. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...; (Persia captures Babylon) [2] http://www.christeternalchristianchurch.com... [3] http://support.amazingdiscoveries.org...- symbolic-figures