On 2-6-26 I posted a Response to Frost on the Great Tribulation. He then made several posts in the comment section. Below is that exchange as it stands on 2-7-2026
@DrSamuelMFrost • 3 hours ago so, "great tibulation" did NOT happen "in the world"? 1 @MrDonPreston So, you are assuming your presuppositional modern cosmology and then imposing that on the text in your question. So, tell me, Mr. Frost, do you believe that Jesus had in mind the Great Tribulation impacting Papua New Guinea, or Chile, or Siberia?
After all, those places are part of "the world" as we know it, so did Jesus have those places in mind?
And I am still waiting for you to explain how, if the Great Tribulation is to be global, how Jesus' apostles and that first century audience could escape it by fleeing Judea? How could they escape it by fleeing just 125 miles to the east to Pella?
@DrSamuelMFrost • 3 hours ago you didn't demonstrate at all how "tote" follows.....you ADMITTED a "normal usage" and then an admission that it does not mean that "all the time." MY POINT.
My Response: There you go again! Yes, Mr. Frost, I noted the "normal" meaning of Tote (which YOU NOW ADMIT) -- and I noted that it does not mean that in every single instance. But you triumphantly claim that this proves your point in Matthew 24. Just another sad example of your abandonment of logic. Everyone knows that in linguistics you have normal definitions which are to be honored and applied UNLESS AND UNTIL THE CONTEXT REQUIRES AN EXCEPTIONAL DEFINITION.
But you see, YOU bear the responsibility to PROVE that because you find an exception to the rule that the rule is eliminated in the text in v. 21! Mr. Frost, you can't prove ANYTHING by stating an obvious exception to the normal rule!! Have you ever heard of illegitimate totality transfer, Mr. Frost?
The point is that to change the normal definition of a word you have to have compelling contextual reason-- not theological bias and prejudice-- for doing so! There is no such reason in Matthew 24-- "When you see the Abomination, Flee, for THEN Shall Be Great Tribulation." Interestingly enough you admitted that the Tribulation DID BEGIN IN THE FIRST CENTURY, MR. FROST! Well, that demands- logically- that the Abomination was in the first century and as a direct result, the Tribulation began! Thank you for destroying your own "argument."
All you did was to run to Matthew 24:8f and, noting an exception use of tote, you then proclaimed "There, see, Preston is wrong!"
You offered not a single word of evidence. Just your ridicule. Sorry, for HONEST students-- and for anyone that understands logic, exegesis and and proper hemeneutic, that will not work.
@DrSamuelMFrost • 3 hours ago So Peter and John did not experience "great stress" in Acts 4-5? Hmmmm. 1
@MrDonPreston • 0 seconds ago Evidently you don't know the difference between the church experiencing Tribulation-- at the hands primarily of the Jews, versus the Jews experiencing the Great Tribulation as a result of committing the Abomination.
@DrSamuelMFrost • 3 hours ago I never mention "Christian age." That's your invention.
@MrDonPreston • 0 seconds ago Funny how lots and lots of commentators through the ages have used that term, yet you have the temerity to claim that I invented it!
Oh, wait! Speaking of inventing things, YOU INVENTED your teachings on the Great Tribulation in 2020! AND, you INVENTED your claims about 2 Thessalonians 1!
Prove me wrong.
Edit--Oh, Hey, Sam, you have cited Blomberg who claims that "the great tribulation is the whole church age....which I agree" (your quote from 1-14-2020). So, will you claim that Blomberg invented the term "Christian age" or "church age"? Will you? LOL! Tell us the difference between "the Christian age" and "the church age," okay?
@DrSamuelMFrost • 3 hours ago Don, you seem to be under the delusion that I deny that Jesus predicted the fall of Jerusalem......uhmazing.
@MrDonPreston • 0 seconds ago I never said or intimated such a thing and you know it. Stop misrepresenting me. Hey, Sam, do you stand by your statement that Jesus prediction that the Great Tribulation began in the first century? Yes or No? Don't fail to answer, okay?
@DrSamuelMFrost • 2 hours ago this may be one of the dumbest responses of Don's that I have heard.
@MrDonPreston • 0 seconds ago Your typical response when you can't offer any exegesis. Ridicule is not refutation, Mr. Frost, so if you are gonna come here on my channel and criticize, then at least attempt to offer some semblance of an actual argument.
@DrSamuelMFrost • 3 hours ago and yet none of these scholars are Full Preterists...... 1
@Eutychus-8352 • 2 hours ago That was my point too Dr Frost, not one of those highly respected bible scholars support Preston views. Whats his point? 1
@DrSamuelMFrost • 2 hours ago @Eutychus-8352 Even reading Pitre, he does not say what Preston espouses. 1
@MrDonPreston • 0 seconds ago Your typical response, which has no probative value. Guess what, AI-- all four of the leading platforms-- said your analysis of Matthew 24:21 was a perversion of the Greek. Not one Translation supports what you said about Matthew 24:21-- yet they are futurists. And I am still waiting for you to offer some scholarly support from your scholars on 2 Thessalonians 1. You keep claiming you have some scholarly support but you never offer it! I am unaware of a single scholar that supports your claims. Thus, your argument is facile and false. It is mere deflection, dodging and dancing. That is the one thing that you are really good at!
@MrDonPreston • 4 minutes ago (edited) Show me where I misrepresented Pitre. Document it clearly. He said that the Abomination was a sin committed in the Temple leading to the destruction of the temple. Prove that wrong.
Here is what Pitre actually says:
“The profanation of the Temple that takes place is not simply tragic, but fatal, for it brings about the destruction of the temple and the city of Jerusalem.” ... “Hence, in the book of Daniel, the ‘abomination of desolation’ not only refers to a profanation of the Temple that leads to the cessation of the sacrifice but also to the destruction of the sanctuary and the holy city that accompanies it.” (Jesus, The Tribulation and the End of Exile, 305).
And just for kicks, notice something else he said:“While the destruction of both the Temple and city is quite explicit in the text of Daniel, it is routinely downplayed by proponents of the “Antiochus Epiphanes” interpretation of Daniel 9 (since, I would suggest, it is the Achilles heel of that interpretation).” (P. 188).
Pitre categorically rejects your claims about the Antiochan application of Daniel 9!!Now, show where I have misrepresented Pitre. Do not fail to answer this, okay? **************************************************************************************************************** I am sure that the conversation will continue and I will share as I deem it worthy of posting.
As the reader can see, Mr. Frost made not a single argument from scripture. His entire post is nothing but deflective, obfuscatory ridicule.
On the current site: original page ↗