Preterists still won't give up...

Who was the man of Sin paul mentions that was destroyed by the second coming of Jesus? When did the resurrection of the church happen then?

 

I think most preterists have you on ignore.

You are also getting away from the point that futurists follow Jesuit teachings.

Clarence Larking a hyper dispensationlist. wrote
The "Futurist School" interprets the language of the Apocalypse "literally, " except such symbols as are named as such, and holds that the whole of the Book, from the end of the third chapter, is yet "future" and unfulfilled, and that the greater part of the Book, from the beginning of chapter six to the end of chapter nineteen, describes what shall come to pass during the last week of "Daniel's Seventy Weeks." This view, while it dates in modern times only from the close of the Sixteenth Century, is really the most ancient of the three. It was held in many of its prominent features by the primitive Fathers of the Church, and is one of the early interpretations of scripture truth that sunk into oblivion with the growth of Papacy, and that has been restored to the Church in these last times. In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit Ribera, who, actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the "Antichrist, " and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future. This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and was for a long time confined to it, but, strange to say, it has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and that among Protestants.

The big lie there is that is the most ancient of the three. It is in fact the most recent as the ECF taught no such thing.

 

When I left the dispie teaching of the Brethren I became an historicist premil, but the nonsense posted by the futurists has made me ook at the scriptures again and I am finding it difficult to see how that can fit in, but I have not yet made my mind up.

I don't think the preterist teaching is viable. I think the futurist teaching is what Paul warned of in 1 Timothy 4:1

 

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha! *i can't breathe!*

 

But what you call the lack of evidence is the inability to reconcile Preterism with your Darbyist assumptions, themselves arbitrary and unsubstantiated.

In short, you're begging the question.

 

And the futurists. Futurism is the most recent of the three main understandings of prophecy and it has arrived in these latter times.

I only support them when they are correct, which is more often than your stargazing is. You say you believe in a literal understanding but you do not as when it suits you you deny the obvious fulfillment because it doesn't fit in with your preconceived ideas. You deny the prince has come and his people destoyed the temple and that is false. It was fulfilled literally to the letter and history PROVES it. Yous are either wilfully denying the actual historical fulfilment or you have been sadly misled by FALSE TEACHERS.

If your teaching disagrees with the teaching of the Church for hundreds of years before 1820, that the POPE is ANTICHRIST, then you are following a false Catholic Teaching whether you are preterist or futurists.

I have found that preterists are far more polite than futurists. Although I have friend who are dispies, so they're not all bad.

 

Oh dear, you don't understand the prophecies.
1) Yes it was. Read all of Olivet again and again and try to understand what it means .
2) The Pope sitting in what he claims is Christ's seat, the church. Remember Paul said more than once You (The Church) are the temple of God. There is no other. Christ lives in his Church.
3) The beast in Revelation 13 is Rome, the 4th beast in Daniel 7. But had the characteristics of the other three. But in the opposite order.
The Lion of Babylon
The Bear of Persia
And the Leopard of Greece.
Compare with Daniel 7.
The beast is the last kingdom, the Iron Kingdom Rome and no Other. Each of the kingdoms was absorbed into the following kingdom until Rome, the last Kingdom.

 

It may be, but not so false as futurist stargazing.

 

Lol. So you say, but that's the real question, isn't it? Is your hermeneutic the right one?

Illuminating the errors and weaknesses in your hermeneutic? Definitely, and so can almost anyone in this thread.

Can I prove my view is consistent with your assumptions? Well of course not. To paraphrase you, my view is right and yours is wrong.

 

No, but then neither can I disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

Apparently, the Church needs another Reformation, to rid itself of dispensationalism.

 

"Literal AS POSSIBLE"

That's a good one. The usual one I hear is "Literal except when a literal understanding won't fit then they are symbolic"

Both leave it to you to make up your mind and the interpretation then depends on you and another can have a different interpretation and then you can argue with each other.

Most of the OT prophecies are symbolic. Daniel 2 The statue and its parts are symbolic. Daniel 7 the bests are symbolic, Horns are symbolic.

In Daniel 8 the Ram is symbolic, the horns are symbolic. The Goat is symbolic, the horns are symbolic. The King of fierce countenance is Herod.

Daniel 9 is a prophecy of the coming of the Lord and his ministry and the destruction of the temple and the end of the earthly kingdom and the beginning of the heavenly kingdom. Although futurists add to it things that are not there. The six points of the seventy weeks were all fulfilled in the Messiah. The later evaents were a result of that. The prince came his people destroyed the temple and city.

Daniel 11 is mainly literal and gives a complete prophecy from the beginning of the Greek empire to the coming of the messiah and the Christians fleeing Jerusalem in the Roman war in Daniel 12:1.

 

And how exactly does a group of unregenerate men (RCC) constitute the Church? The RCC is not the temple of God and is not the church. Therefore the pope does not sit in the temple of God.

 

Does your mommy know you are on the computer again?