That matchup is clear as even many futurists are forced to admit. I provided one simple piece of evidence from the writings of Marcellus Kik where he carefully compares Christ's language in Matthew 24 with the prophecies of the OT.
Dispensartionalists, on the other hand, do not compare Scripture with Scripture, preferring the simplistic approach of reading the Bible in the light of the evening newspaper and claiming it is all "obvious". That does not trump sound biblical exegesis.
If you are really interested in understanding the issues, there amy many good articles and texts on the subject. I suggest you start with this one: On the "transitional verses" in Matthew 24.
Sorry TC, Marcellus struck out and grossly failed to relate to the whole of scripture on the subject - choosing to only focus upon the clouds and associated metaphors. There was absolutely no linkage to the events in AD 70 in that little snippet. Speaking of failing to address the whole of biblical prophecy presented in Mt 24
The gospel was not spread throughout the whole world in AD 70 (24:14)
The "abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place" (24:15) Silence on Kik's part. Paul references the prophecy of the same even - so who was this guy? (crickets)
What evidence that Christ returned in AD 70 (24:30, 37).
There have been greater tribulations for Israel in the years past AD70 (24:21)
My, four significant areas of Jesus' prophecy that Kik completely fails to address with the exception of an obfuscation of Christ's return. And you accuse pretribs of shallow bible study practices"
Dispensartionalists, on the other hand, do not compare Scripture with Scripture, preferring the simplistic approach of reading the Bible in the light of the evening newspaper and claiming it is all "obvious". That does not trump sound biblical exegesis.
Ah, you seem to have all the one liners and grossly mischaracterize dispensational comparisons of scriptures across the bible. The more I review preterism, the more it seems like the flat earth society.
See, a key component of Christianity is historical agreement. We find that in the OT prophecies regarding Christ's first advent, it is proper exegesis to expect to find the same/similar in NT prophecies. As the list above indicates, the overwhelming a priori demands that the NT prophetic events cumulated in AD 70. That is not sound biblical exegesis, particularly when the main prophetic NT book - Revelation - wasn't written until about 20 years after the fall of Jerusalem.
If you are really interested in understanding the issues, there amy many good articles and texts on the subject.
Well, at least this tells me where you got your ideas regarding the changing of 'signs'
However, the good Dr. runs aground on the use of PERI DE - it is more commonly translated But of . . rather than "now concerning" (try a key word search with bible software). He tries to link this to being a 'transition' - sorry, contextually Jesus was referring back to His statement in verses 29-31. Sorry, basic bible reading 101.
Do you believe with Dr Gentry that Zechariah 12—14 was a parallel passage to the Mt 24-25 (Olivet Discourse)?
I am still frequently amazed at how weak even the GREAT EXPERTS are in their assaults on Dispensationalism and their defenses of REPLACEMENTARIANISM.
It’s almost embarrassing—in their behalf.
YET ANOTHER BRAZEN FALSEHOOD brought to us by the REPLACEMENTARIANS/ PRETERISTS/ A-MILS/ POST-MILS/ RUN-OF-THE-MILS and pseudo-theological-also-rans.
Perhaps it's projection? Maybe it's jealousy. Maybe they wish the knew how to rub two Scriptures together and come up with the warmth and light of obvious truth.
Given their Rubber Bibles and ineptness . . . I don't think they'll ever learn to do that . . . not in this life. Though we ought to pray otherwise.