In your first posted response I did not see anything that you offered to prove your position except Rev. 1:5 . It appears you are simply trying to neutralize the evidence I have presented rather than try and prove your view to be accurate, other than the Rev. 1:5 and a couple of other things which I will specifically address again below.
What I will focus upon then is evidence which I believe proves my points, at least beyond a reasonable doubt, at least in harmony with Biblical precedent and pattern, evidence that I think you are missing. I believe, as I have shared before, that we should always and primarily rely upon Biblical precedent and pattern as a guide in our interpretations. Otherwise, we are simply prone to follow our own subjective views and preferences. The best way to allow God's spirit to guide us is by allowing God's spirit to guide us, and we both agree that the Bible is like congealed holy spirit in written form. What better guide for interpretation can there be? True, Biblical context or Biblical explicit statements elsewhere to the contrary, can alter the meaning of a word or phrase that might every where else be used differently, but the context or statement would have to be explicit and unmistakable in doing so. Without that, Biblical precedent and pattern should rule the day. I am not sure you agree with that, but frankly, you should, as should anyone who desires to get God's thoughts when it comes to anything that is written in scripture, in prophecy.
As far as the "Lord's day" referring to the first day of the week, to Sunday, there is no Biblical precedent or pattern to establish that and the context is far from explicit otherwise, in fact, the surrounding context surely lends itself to the application of it being the Lord's Day in connection with the revelation of Jesus Christ from heaven. For this reason, I reject your explanation as having any precedent or pattern for acceptance. Scripture should rule here, not extra-biblical references.
As far as there being no reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, it is far more natural for there to be no mention of the destroyed Jerusalem if it was already past than if it was imminent and looming immediately in the future. The very fact that your view does not seem to include any reference to this imminent destruction, even when the prophecy is willing to talk about the supposed current courtyard, is highly inordinate and unnatural. There would be every reason to include the mention of this coming destruction.
In fact, it is the description of and the final outcome of Babylon the Great that stands against your own timing of the book and squarely against the preterist timing of the book. There is no way, except in the most strained manner, and even then it fails, to apply the description and the final outcome of Babylon to pre 70CE Jerusalem. The preterist explanation can not stand the test of logic or history when compared to the words used to describe Babylon.
You try to take the position that Babylon doesn't apply to Jerusalem. That's smart, but then you close the door on your own interpretation because if it was really written pre 70 CE, it would be highly inordinate for that prophecy not to mention the imminent destruction of Jerusalem. In fact, if your explanation of who the seven headed wild beast is, is to be taken seriously, it makes no sense at all that the imminent destruction of Jerusalem is not mentioned, yet the destruction of Babylon, who RIDES the seven headed wild beast, IS explained.
Think about this as well, you claim that many things of Revelation is directly at Jews and directed at many things in direct connection with Jerusalem, yet there is no message to the church at Jerusalem? How odd is that?
Both positions do not line up with logic. The most logical view is it wasn't mentioned because it already happened and nothing in the prophetic signs that were presented had anything to do with the past. And the very fact that the Jerusalem that is mentioned is called NEW Jerusalem, bespeaks the fact that something had happened to the OLD Jerusalem.
Therefore, the most logical view is that Revelation was written POST 70 CE and that the signs mentioned in verse 1, were to take place in the future, just as it says in that verse and reiterated in 4:1. Therefore, based upon the above, I reject your interpretation that Revelation was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. It just doesn't add up with the nature of the prophecies.
You seem to think that John could not have been time shifted in the opening verses of Revelation because he doesn't mention being in the Lord's Day until verse 9. Surely you must know that just because he doesn't mention this time transfer until verse 9, in no way means that he could not have already experienced it in the preceding verses, especially when there is nothing in the preceding verse to nullify the idea but rather actually supports the idea beginning with verse 7. Verse 7 is an explicit parallel to the revelation of Jesus Christ and the subsequent result, mentioned in the Olivet Sermon, which is clearly referencing things far into the future, far past 70CE. It is an explicit reference to the parousia of Christ which you do not believe has happened yet. So it is clearly a futuristic reference. So even though this time transfer is not mentioned until verse 9, it in no way removes him from being there, even in verse 1. Regardless, verse 7 puts us in the time of the parousia, which is the Lord's Day. Every contextual indicator in this introduction establishes the Lord’s Day as in connection with the parousia of Christ.
I believe your treatment of the 24 elders and who they are is a glaringly wrong. You should know that according to every ancient manuscript, except ONE, verse 9 of chapter five, which is quoting the 24 elders, says "with your blood you redeemed US". Therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to not view the 24 elders as those who have been redeemed by the blood of Christ, which explicitly establishes them as "former humans" who are now in heaven, and since there are NO humans in heaven prior to the parousia, the point I am making in regard to these 24 elders is irrevocably established. If they are being shown in the vision, then the vision is clearly after the commencement of the parousia, no matter how long you think it lasts.
Plus, angels are NEVER referred to as ELDERS, anywhere in the Bible. Therefore your view is unprecedented and unparalleled according to scripture and that is ample reason alone to reject it. That, along with the fact that your view is out of harmony with every ancient manuscript but one is also enough to reject it. To discredit the reading of "US" simply and only because it does not appear in the one single Codex of Alexandria, is most unreasonable and unjust to the weight of authority that it exhibits everywhere else.
As far as the meaning of parousia, there is no Biblical precedent or pattern except the one that establishes it as meaning "presence". And it is not a word that just appears a couple of times. There are a number of occurrences that are not in connection to the coming of Christ and they all mean presence. And advent is entirely in harmony with the idea of presence because you can't have an advent unless you're present. Advent does not refer to PRE-advent, but refers to the event. The disciples asked for signs of his ADVENT, not his PRE-advent, so the signs were signs not of the PRE-advent stage, but of the advent itself.
Nor do I think your handling of the word "sunteleia" is accurate. You claim that it is used interchangeably with telos, but I fail to see any evidence of that whatsoever.
There is a reference that is of particular value here and it is Hebrews 9:26 which says:
26 Otherwise, he would have to suffer often from the founding of the world. But now he has manifested himself once for all time at the conclusion of the systems of things to put sin away through the sacrifice of himself.
Hebrews here tells us that Jesus manifested himself at the conclusion of the system of things, which means it could have been as early as his birth but certainly no later than his baptism, and we know that the conclusion of the systems of things was STILL continuing and would continue to finalize until the destruction of Jerusalem. This tells us that the sunteleia is a time period LEADING to an end, just as Thayer's describe it as.
You claim you don't believe that the Granville Sharp rule has any bearing at Matthew 24:3, so show me a Biblical example otherwise and I will drop it. If not, then Biblical pattern and precedent stands explicitly against your non-acceptance.
When it comes to the sign that was asked for, Jesus clearly corrected the idea that it would not be a single thing that would be the sign, but it would be numerous things. He did not try and demonstrate that it was just one thing for the language throughout the Olivet Sermon denies such and idea. The very words of Jesus that says "When you see ALL these things occur" then you should know that his revelation from heaven is near which was described as the sign of the Son of Man that all nations would beat themselves in lamentations over. When Jesus said that when you see ALL these things, what were the ALL things he was talking about?
You can't take one account over the other and discard what is said in one account and treat it as inconsequential. You must take all the accounts of the same thing and include everything that was said to have the complete picture, not one or the other. Matthew clearly uses the preaching of the good news to all the nations as a sign for the end because he states THEN the end will come. Therefore, that was clearly one of the things included in ALL the things that would tell them the revelation of Jesus from heaven was about to happen. Luke mentions that Jesus said, after mentioned the great tribulation that when you see these THINGS, not this ONE THING, but THESE THING occur, lift your heads up because your deliverance is getting near. Since Matthew makes it clear that the composite included things BEFORE the mentioning of the great tribulation, there is no reason to discard the other things he spoke of in the very same breath.
The very fact that those signs were called the "beginning of pangs of distress" makes no sense in the overall historic view because they wouldn't be the beginning of anything unless they were somehow different in nature then the all the other historic earthquakes, famines, pestilences and wars. The fact that they are referred to as a BEGINNING of something shows they had to be different in nature or they would not be the beginning of anything, just more of the same. Frankly, there would have been no need to even mention those things if they were not significant to the sign, if they were not part of ALL those things which would tell them the revelation was near.
Jesus' warning was against the ones who would personally claim to be Christ and say the due time is near in the sense that they would know the day and the hour. The reason we know that to be true is because later Bible writers specifically said that the "due time has approached" or the "end of all things is near". Should we not listen to them because they said this? There is clearly a difference then between what his inspired writers were doing and what he said would be going on in that verse.
He surely couldn't mean that it would be wrong for all time for his followers to ever say, "the end is near" or the "time has approached" or both John and Peter should no longer be listened to.
(Revelation 22:10) He also tells me: “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this scroll, for the appointed time is near.
(1 Peter 4:7) 7 But the end of all things has drawn close. . . .
33 Likewise also YOU, when YOU see all these things, know that he is near at the doors.
Wouldn't it be pretty stupid for Christians to know he was NEAR at the doors and not say anything? Of course it would and would be remiss if we didn't. That is obviously not what Jesus was talking about in that verse in Luke.
There is no indication whatsoever that the signs he gave them, once he assured that them that it would not be singular event, like a war, were FALSE signs. there is absolutely nothing in the context that indicates that in the least. In fact, in Revelation, when Jesus takes his crown, it is immediately followed by global war and famine, in direct harmony with his words at the Olivet Sermon.
You continue to rant on about the wrongness of the identification of the 24 elders but the scriptures are as clear on that as they are anything else. They are REDEEMED by the BLOOD of CHRIST, so there is NO QUESTION as to who they are and there is NO QUESTION as to when they end up in heaven, AT his PAROUSIA. Therefore the visions of Revelation, which ALL take place passing in front of the backdrop of what was introduced in the 4th chapter, are ALL in the time of the PAROUSIA, no other time fits historically with the REDEEMED in heaven.
I am sure you know that just because some of the commentators I gave you agree with us about the identity of the man child, that in no way means I have to endorse everything else they believe. The point was singular. It was certainly not some far-fetched, JW spawned invention to fit their agenda. Far from it.
There is no reason to belabor the point about why God just doesn't come out and specifically spell things out in prophecy. As I said, just like parables, prophecy is generally full of symbolic language, and God uses symbolic language for a reason and the reason is consistent with the same reason why he used it in parables. I don't think you should have an issue with that.
I also think it quite obvious that God does not create prophecy for the purpose of private interpretation as I think we agree, but yes, there have been different interpretations of the same prophecy. That really isn't the point that there should have never been but one prophetic interpretation. The point is that the individual members of God's "ecclesia" should not be promoting private and numerous interpretations at the same time but should obviously agree upon a view until such time as they see the need to change it. What else could it mean except that God's ecclesia should present harmonious views of prophecy? But the whole point is, prophecy and parable are most often NOT explained and is therefore up to the ecclesia to interpret. That does not mean that the ecclesia would never adjust the interpretation as they come to understand things in a better light.
You claim that it could have been explained just like it was to his disciples but you will note that this was only for his disciples and they are rarely spelled out in detail in the scriptures. The ecclesia is left to the determination of those which are not spelled out. Otherwise, it would produce private interpretations from one person to the next, which is not what God wants. Actually, the way prophecy should be handled bespeaks the unity of God's ecclesia, not the disunity.
Prophetic interpretation and parabolic understanding then does become somewhat a matter of trust. It becomes a matter of trust in those you regard to be the ecclesia of God. As long as the constituents of a prophecy or parable do not contradict known logic, history or other scriptures, then the ecclesia should promote a singular view to the best of their ability and the individuals members should concur to that view rather than go around preaching and teaching different private views of prophecy. Otherwise there would be no reason why God would even care to assure us that prophecy was not born from private interpretation.
True, you and I would be considered as having different private interpretations compared to just ourselves, as could many others who take different views, but that again is not the point. Who do you think I trust as the ecclesia of God? Is it you or someone else? No, it isn't. In fact, do you even claim to be representing the ecclesia of God in some fashion? I can certainly see far more consistency with logic, history and Biblical pattern and precedent in their interpretations then the ones you and others have presented.
I believe I have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the prophecies of Revelation are all parousiac prophecies because they are all back dropped by the presence of the 24 elders. I also believe I have presented beyond any reasonable doubt that the Olivet sermon was not a singular sign but was clearly composite with many aspects. I also believe that I have presented beyond any reasonable doubt that the little horn in question could not be Antiochus Epiphanes and could not have manifested itself until far after 33 CE. I do not believe that your explanations and interpretations fit with Biblical precedent, nor do they fit logically with the actual words of the prophecy when compared to history.
I also believe that I have presented beyond any reasonable doubt that a person, such as king David, could be called king by God himself long before he actually became king, because he was anointed to BECOME the king, he was the king-designate. There is absolutely no reason that the same could not happen to Jesus. In fact, as is often the case, David's journey to the throne in Jerusalem parallels Jesus journey to the same. David was called king by God when Samuel anointed him to be king in front of his father and brothers, but he was not the true king yet. Later, he became king JUST over the tribe of Judah and for the first seven years of being king he did not reign in Jerusalem. It wasn't until after the death of Mephibosheth that David actually became king over all Israel. Just like Jesus, who was anointed early on to be the king of God's kingdom, and could be called king because of that anointing, became the king first over just the Christian congregation, then later, he became king of the world.
You claim that our Danielic interpretation breaks down once we get to Rome, but frankly, I have not seen that demonstrated at all. The ten horns as ten kings from the Roman Empire and the fact that the little horn uproots three of them while they are still kings is a perfect fit with history. Even our view of the dream image in the second chapter of Daniel is a perfect fit with history and it parallels the prophecy in Daniel 7 without a flaw. Frankly, after that, it makes no difference when one would claim that the kingdom by Christ was established in those following verses of Daniel 7 because what it clearly establishes, from THAT context, is it could not happen in 33 CE, and that is the current main purpose of our discussion.
I was just wondering, is there any one who sees Jesus as King before his ascension to heaven? Or is that your idea alone? I think the most natural reading of Luke's parable is that he was not the king until he went to heaven. If he was already king at the time of the parable it would be odd to simply refer to him as a man of noble birth.
However, in other places, could he be referred to as a king in the same sense that David was, as king-designate? Yes, he could. That way, all the prophecies and parables make historic, logical and scriptural sense.
I can see from your responses that you miss the point of the difference between something being spoken of as under the feet of a king and something being presented as a footstool for the feet.
Even you have to admit that even though Jesus had all power and authority, his enemies had not yet been set under his feet as a stool for his feet. You also have to admit that not everything was UNDER his feet because he rules UNTIL all enemies are UNDER his feet, and that STILL hasn't happened. These are not synonymous references and not recognizing that is part of the problem.
The EARTH is spoken of as God's footstool because it is part of his domain, but that has no comparison to the things which are said to be UNDER his feet or to be put under his feet. Being brought under the feet of a king is a description of their destruction, not a description of mere domain over them. Something being placed as a stool for the king could sometimes even be a place of honor, but it clearly was different than destruction, it was an indication of domain as a king.
When it says that God invited Jesus to sit at his RIGHT HAND UNTIL he placed his enemies as a stool for his feet was not a reference to their destruction but was reference to his domain over them. Only later is their destruction referred to as being put UNDER his feet. They are placed under the kings domain and he can begin to subdue in the midst of those enemies, bringing them one by one UNDER his feet, to their destruction.
Look at the references and the manner in which they refer to the expressions "UNDER his feet" as opposed to something presented as a footstool.
First of all we can see that the phrase which speaks of enemies being UNDER someone's feet is a phrase denoting their destruction:
(Psalm 18:38) . . .I shall break them in pieces so that they will not be able to rise up; They will fall under my feet.
(2 Samuel 22:39) . . .And they will fall under my feet.
(1 Kings 5:3) 3 “You yourself well know that David my father was not able to build a house to the name of Jehovah his God because of the warfare with which they surrounded him, until Jehovah put them under the soles of his feet.
(Psalm 47:3) 3 He will subdue peoples under us And national groups under our feet.
(Malachi 4:3) 3 “And YOU people will certainly tread down [the] wicked ones, for they will become as powder under the soles of YOUR feet in the day on which I am acting,” Jehovah of armies has said.
(Matthew 7:6) 6 “Do not give what is holy to dogs, neither throw YOUR pearls before swine, that they may never trample them under their feet and turn around and rip YOU open.
(Romans 16:20) 20 For his part, the God who gives peace will crush Satan under YOUR feet shortly. . . .
(1 Corinthians 15:24-28) 24 Next, the end, when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. 25 For he must rule as king until [God] has put all enemies under his feet.
Whenever we see "enemies" under the feet, it is a clear indication of their defeat, or defeet if you prefer.
That clearly reminds us of the first prophecy in the Bible where Satan is crushed in the head, likely under the foot of Jesus.
However, such is not the case when something is referred to as being one's footstool.
(1 Chronicles 28:2) . . .“Hear me, my brothers and my people. As for me, it was close to my heart to build a resting house for the ark of the covenant of Jehovah and as the footstool of our God, and I had made preparation to build.
Psalm 99:5) 5 Exalt Jehovah our God and bow down yourselves at his footstool; He is holy.
(Acts 7:49) 49 ‘The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. . . .
(Matthew 5:34-35) 34 However, I say to YOU: Do not swear at all, neither by heaven, because it is God’s throne; 35 nor by earth, because it is the footstool of his feet; nor by Jerusalem, because it is the city of the great King.
(Psalm 132:7) 7 Let us come into his grand tabernacle; Let us bow down at his footstool.
(Isaiah 66:1) 66 This is what Jehovah has said: “The heavens are my throne, and the earth is my footstool. . . .
Being one's footstool did not signify destruction, but signified domain.
So what about the different references to Christ then and what exactly he was awaiting? When he went to heaven he was told to sit at God's right hand UNTIL his enemies were placed as a STOOL for his feet, not being an indication of their destruction but being part of his domain as KING. He was not told to sit at his right hand until they were put UNDER his feet as enemies. There is a difference. In fact, when Jesus is shown to be ruling as king in heaven in the book of Revelation, he is NO LONGER at God's RIGHT HAND but is sitting on the throne WITH his Father, or is spoken of as being in the "midst" of the throne, not at the right hand.
So while he is awaiting the enemies to be placed as a footstool, not destroyed, he is sitting at God's right hand. Never is the waiting said to be in reference to his enemies being brought UNDER his feet, but always in reference to them being placed as a footstool. This tells us that if he has to WAIT to have those enemies as a footstool, they are NOT YET under his domain to where he can start to go subduing in the midst of them. It is only after they become part of his domain does he go subduing and placing them UNDER his feet as destroyed.
This is clearly reflected in Revelation 6 when Jesus takes his throne and starts riding in conquest of his enemies, and I have already demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt, that these visions are parousiac as to their timing.
Something had to happen to where Jesus was no longer at God's right hand but would be upon his throne with him, in the midst of his throne or God would BE his throne. Since there is a clear difference between something being one's footstool and someone being brought under foot as an enemy, there is a difference between the time referred to as when he would put all enemies under his feet and the time when he would be awaiting to have those enemies placed as his footstool. Yes, his authority over everything was established at his resurrection from heaven, but this is not the same thing as being king over the world. This is clearly pointed out from the scripture in Hebrews where it says all things have been subjected under his feet yet we do NOT YET SEE all things subjected to him. This subjection, including that of his enemies was PROGRESSIVE and not until all his enemies were under his feet as a footstool could he go conquering them. He may have had authority over the demons but he certainly was not destroying them under his feet. Until the point that all of his enemies were placed as a footstool, being under his domain, he was to sit at God's right hand. Once he would become king, he clearly sits upon God's throne WITH him to do so, but that would take time, it was not immediate for all the above reasons.
Satan was clearly under God's domain but he was not UNDER his FEET, not according to the way that phrase is used in reference to enemies. Jesus enemies would be placed as a footstool for his feet, they were being gathered as his DOMAIN, but this was not the same as being UNDER his feet as enemies, again, not according to the way the phrase is used.
When Jesus was shown to become king in Revelation six, immediately following that enthronement, the war horse was said to take peace away from the earth with a GREAT sword. World War I fits that description to a T. There was no significant war or wars after 33 CE that took place to the extent that it could be called a GREAT sword and that peace was taken away from the EARTH, which is a clear reference to GLOBAL warfare, not just a localized war between countries. World War I dwarfed any war before it in history in intensity and the deaths that it caused. That war horse was clearly not just a reference to "more of the same kind of wars that had always happened". A great sword that took away peace from the earth began riding when Jesus did. Death from democide through the last nearly 100 years looks like an aneurysm in time.
In the book of Daniel, not EVERYWHERE in scripture, but Daniel, when in reference to rulers, when they are said to "stand up" it most often means they begin to exercise kingly authority, generally in the sense of against something else. That's not Watchtower my friend, that's just scripture. The Watchtower merely repeated the truth. You'll note that I rarely quote Watchtower. My presentations are primarily about Biblical precedent and patterns. The Watchtower comes after the Bible. So you would be better off to remain dealing with the scriptures instead of cheap shots at the Watchtower.
(Daniel 7:17) 17 “‘As for these huge beasts, because they are four, there are four kings that will stand up from the earth.
(Daniel 8:21-22) . . .. 22 And that one having been broken, so that there were four that finally stood up instead of it, there are four kingdoms from [his] nation that will stand up, but not with his power.
(Daniel 8:23-24) 23 “And in the final part of their kingdom, as the transgressors act to a completion, there will stand up a king fierce in countenance and understanding ambiguous sayings. 24 And his power must become mighty, but not by his own power. . . .
(Daniel 11:3) 3 “And a mighty king will certainly stand up and rule with extensive dominion and do according to his will.
So in Daniel 12, during the time of the end, Jesus stands up against something as king. That would be his enemies that have been made a footstool for his feet. When he begins his rule he is no pictured at God's right hand, but on his throne with him. If he was ruling fully as king when he was at his right hand, then what does it mean when he ends up on the throne with his Father? What's the difference?
And how you say that the closing verses of chapter 11 of Daniel could apply before 33 CE is truly beyond me. Would love to see an attempt at that, that doesn't deny history or logic. Right after this action as king, which is the first time in Daniel that Jesus is spoken as taking action as king in the closing prophecies about the king of the north and the south, the great tribulation follows and the resurrection of the dead commences. These are all events associated with the parousia.
Once again, Acts 2 or Peter says nothing about actually being placed on the throne, the "therefore" and the "because" merely identified the one who David referred to as the one who would. In fact, Gods' kings are NEVER spoken of as sitting on the right hand of someone else's throne. Even Solomon was said to sit ON Jehovah's throne, not at it's right hand. The right hand is a position of favor, not an indication of rulership. Rulership in relation to thrones is either spoken of as being ON the throne WITH God or Jesus, or actually sitting ON God's throne as was Solomon, not at the right hand. Peter knew what he was saying and what he was not saying, I am sure, and the exaltation was explicitly in reference to Lord and Savior and Christ. In fact, one could argue that it could be just as significant that KING was NOT mentioned at that time because Peter knew that Jesus was not sitting on God's throne, as was king Solomon at one time. The Davidic throne was "God's throne" according to scripture, not at the right hand of God's throne.
I didn't see anything else in your last response that I felt needed a specific comment that wasn't touched on in the above coverage. If you see something glaringly ignored, please mention it and I will address it immediately.
But as a recap I would like to list the following.
1. Daniel 7 most naturally reads that the Son of Man received his kingship of the world sometime after the little horn which naturally falls in line with sometime after the Roman empire fell apart into ten sub kingdoms. Applications to Antiochus Epiphanus are most unnatural and destroy the natural sequence of events as they appear in the prophecy and history.
2. David was referred to as God's king long before he ever was on the throne at Jerusalem, Jehovah's throne. He first became king over one tribe and then later the entire nation. This parallels the kingship progression of Jesus Christ, whom David is a strong antitype. Jesus first became king over the ecclesia and then the world at a late time.
3. Revelation, where Christ is often spoken as receiving his kingship, is most naturally understood as a collection of prophecies which transpire during the parousia of Christ because the 24 elders are shown to be in heaven and they are those who are redeemed by the blood of Christ. We are also explicitly told that none of the holy ones are in heaven until the parousia.
4. God's kings are never spoken of as sitting at his right hand, but are shown to be ON God's throne.
5. There is a marked difference between something serving as a footstool and something being put under the feet as an enemy. One is domain, the other is destruction.
6. Revelation 6 where Jesus is said to begin his rule (receive his crown) is said to be followed by great warfare which takes away peace from the EARTH. That fits extremely well with the events of warfare starting circa the year 1914 and onward. No other century comes close to the amount of democide which has occured in this last 100 years, or nearly so. It far exceeds the ratio of populace as well when compared to the war/population ratios of the past. It is an aneurysm in history.
I believe the arguments presented are the strongest arguments available when logic, history and scriptural precedent and pattern serve as our guide.