Search results

Thank you. Likewise, I believe that you agree that Scripture is our primary source for revelation. The Sea Beast did fulfill all the criteria to the letter. As a side note, sometimes the Beast refers to Rome, which the ruling emperor represented. If the inspired Apostle was wrong, the angel...

Actually, history proves the events prophesied actually have occurred. It's just that those who hold the "futurist" view refuse to recognize their fulfillment.

An excellent point, Brother. While modern historians recognize Augustus as the first of the emperors, Julius Caesar was recognized as the first of the emperors during the 1st Century - e.g., Josephus. It makes sense that if early historians saw Julius Caesar as the first of the emperors, the...

AMEN, Brother Glen. I would think that's pretty unusual for any Evangelical church, but especially for Baptists. This "latter-day stargazing" is just a distraction from the core of the Gospel. People tend to be looking for Jesus to come instead of being content that He should already be...

Now that is a comparison I'd never heard :Roflmao. Probably a silly question (as if I'd let that stop me), but from your comment, I am guessing you are NOT a futurist. (You may have told me once before, but my memory ain't what it used to be. Actually, my memory is more of a "never was" than...

Excellent rebuttal, David. This was especially fitting after @robycop3 finished his thread about Preterists with the assumption that he has proven his case. Only those who are willing to admit that they may be wrong are open-minded enough to be taught, especially when it comes to interpreting...

I am 95% positive that the "Sea Beast" in Revelation 13 was Emperor Nero. I am 100% sure that if it wasn't Nero, it was certainly a notable figure in the 1st Century. I am also 100% sure that whatever proof I offer will be rejected by those who hold to the "Futurist" view. To begin with, you...

I'll have to get back to you on Monday. Have a great weekend, Brother.

As much "fun" as this is, you are beginning to wear me out. We keep going over the same thing. I feel like I'm the guy stuck in time in "Groundhog Day". On that note, I've got some things to wrap up, and I'm going to make it an early day. I hope to pick up the debate on the "Nero" thread on...

As I recall, the Zionist Movement was largely behind Israel's return to Palestine. This started around the beginning of the 20th Century, as the Jews were forced to leave various countries in Europe. With the end of WWII, the deal was finally sealed. I really don't see it as all that...

"Futurists" do not distinguish between His "coming in judgment" (via the Roman armies) and the 2nd Advent. God "visited" different nations in judgment without literally coming down to them.

If the futurist claims actually could be proven, I'm sure you would have done so by now. You are still left with conjecture. Even IF the Jews did build a new temple, that would not necessarily prove that was in fulfillment of prophecy. I do recall that the Jews did start to rebuild it around...

Not sure if I'd go so far as to call it heresy. While this is a different eschatological view, I reserve the term "heresy" for things of "eternal significance" - e.g. the nature of Jesus, the Trinity, etc.

Heremenutics is basically "how do you know what you know". I've been presenting that all along. Where is the proof that the Olivet Discourse was NOT referring to the destruction of Jerusalem (which everyone knows came to pass in AD 70)?

The proof is in the pudding. Where is the proof for the futurist view? When it comes down to it, you won't convince me, and I won't convince you.

Israel becoming a nation again in 1948 is not a fulfillment of prophecy. Having said that, I won't argue that God hasn't blessed them, especially during their many conflicts. I'm not looking for "proof" of Preterist symbolism, as I am 100% convinced. To those who will not believe it, no...

That hasn't happened yet (other than the guys who came out of their graves when Christ was crucified, of course). As a Partial Preterist, I believe the events at the end of Revelation are still in our future.

No argument there, Brother. While I believe Jesus "came" in judgment on Jerusalem in AD 70, that is not the same as the 2nd Advent, which we are still looking forward to.

To the contrary, you are only parroting the same old "end of the world" scenario that has been around for years. Not a shred of evidence for these claims.

Taking Scripture at face value is not the same as taking all Scripture with the literal view you hold to. Earlier you acknowledged that Scripture does use symbolism, which always points to something literal. On that basis, I am taking Scripture at their "sensus literalis" value - according to...