Abomination of Desolation Was Indeed Already Fulfilled

[David Kent]

If you want to believe in Preterism, that is your choice.
I'll stick with what I see in Scripture alone.

I do not believe preterism as you know full well. I believe as the Waldenses did, and Huss, and the Lollards, as well as the reformers that the POPE IS ANTICHRIST.
I believe the historicism teachings,the only non Catholic unddefrstanding of the prophecies.
I dodt know why you contend with me and not with the RC trolls on here . I suppose it is because you have inbibed their teaching.

 

[John I Morris]

Let's see you prove your claims. And then I'll answer.

HAHAHA You are a funny fellow. You have not proved yours one bit. You have no Scripture, so telling me that you won't answer until I prove mine, doesn't work that way. You prove your premise, then I'll answer more. If not, I really do not care. I know what I believe and have been following since I was pastor of my first church in 1982.

 

[Dave G]

I do not believe preterism as you know full well.

My apologies.

I believe as the Waldenses did, and Huss, and the Lollards, as well as the reformers that the POPE IS ANTICHRIST.

I don't.
I happen to believe that an anti-Christ is represented there, but not THE Anti-Christ of Revelation.

I believe the historicism teachings,the only non Catholic unddefrstanding of the prophecies.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

I read the Scriptures, and that is what I get out of them...along with the "doctrines of grace" and much more.

I dodt know why you contend with me and not with the RC trolls on here .

I have no desire to offend anyone, just to explain what I believe and why.

I suppose it is because you have inbibed their teaching.

I heard the word of God in an Independent Baptist church in 1978 when I was 12 years old.

At the age of 37 in 2003, a friend of mine, who received Christ in 1991, gave me some passages of Scripture and I was convinced of God's choice of the sinner to salvation.
That jump-started my Bible reading from stagnant, to study almost overnight.
For over 25 years before that, I'd lived a life less-than-pleasing to the Lord.

In 2005 I left the church I'd grown up in, joined another, more conservative "Traditionalist" church in another part of town ( I live in an area of over 350,000 people ) and tried to convince the pastor there of election, predestination and so forth.
He couldn't see it any more than the church I'd come from.

I knew then that it was time to go.
I left my second Baptist church ( one of only a few in town that I thought was even remotely biblical in their practice ) in 2006.

Since that time, I've attended visible churches a total of 4 times, never staying for more than two services.
I've assembled together with one other brother every weekend for the past 13 years, taking every teaching and doctrine back to Scripture.

Some teachings I've had to scrap and rebuild from God's word alone...
Some I've had to modify.
Some I've had to learn, having never been exposed to them in the Baptist circles I was part of.

None of it was what I believe to be Roman Catholic in origin.
Much of it was either "Arminian" or "Traditionalist" in origin

I've only been in a Roman Catholic church 3 times in my life ( for weddings ), and was struck with how alien it felt seeing statues of people and watching people bow to them and go through all sorts of rituals.
With the exception of a few general teachings that are common to the Bible, I know of nothing "Roman Catholic" that I have imbibed.

Again, may God bless you sir.

 

[JoeT]

If "credentials" were an indication of having the truth then surely all those MIT and harvard grads that say we came from apes are telling us the truth.

We aren't discussing apes with graduate degrees, we're discussing legitimate credentials. You can complain about the illegitimate, put the purpose of the credentials isn't to identify the professional, rather it is to prevent unaccredited individuals from practicing.

The scriptures themselves reveal if someone is in the truth or not, so, rather than seek credentials, seek to see if what I'm saying is truly scriptural.

You just made my point "For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost." [2 Peter 1:21]. That's why he said "that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation." [2 Peter 1:20]. You on the other hand have taken it on yourself to know or know not what is holy, what is right and what is righteous, what is spiritually true and what you don't want to be spiritually true.

JoeT

 

[robycop3]

As I said you are making it up as you go along. If it was worldwide why were the Jewish Christians urged to flee Jerusalem to escape it, and why did they flee as recorded by Eusebius, and possibly by Josephus. (He said prominent Jews deserted the city as rats desert a ship that sinks.)
You mix unrelated prophecies together and make it up as you go along. Remember that futurism is a Jesuit invention and youi have fallen for it.

Your PRETERISM is DEFINITELY a jeezit invention, and is as phony as a Chevy Mustang.

 

[Shoostie]

Your PRETERISM is DEFINITELY a jeezit invention, and is as phony as a Chevy Mustang.

I've never seen a man-made Chevy Mustang.

 

[gaviria.christian]

We aren't discussing apes with graduate degrees, we're discussing legitimate credentials. You can complain about the illegitimate, put the purpose of the credentials isn't to identify the professional, rather it is to prevent unaccredited individuals from practicing.



You just made my point "For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost." [2 Peter 1:21]. That's why he said "that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation." [2 Peter 1:20]. You on the other hand have taken it on yourself to know or know not what is holy, what is right and what is righteous, what is spiritually true and what you don't want to be spiritually true.

JoeT

The disciples were unaccredited men. Some mere fishermen. Yet God in his favor chose to grant these men profound knowledge and understanding of him. The truth that a man of God speaks is what gives him credibility, not his fancy titles and degrees from fancy seminaries. How do we determine what is true or not? By what is written. The Messiah uttered these words, "I did not come to abolish the Torah". So clearly anyone who speaks contrary to this one very basic and profound truth is not teaching the truth. And we see that most of these men with fancy titles and degrees teach only lies contrary to the truth, because they have no knowledge nor understanding of the truth, and neither do the seminaries that taught them. It is blind men guiding blind men, just like the Pharisees who were very knowledgeable men in the Torah, but were also very blind. So that is why I say, do not seek credentials. It is stupid to do so in things that relate to God, which will only cause you to stumble as you find reasons to disbelieve someone who is actually telling you the truth, like a lawyer trying to create doubt any way he can to cause a jury to not believe a true testimony. How do I know what is righteous and set-apart and right and true? Because what I speak is the Torah, which is the foundation of the righteousness and set-apartness and truth of God, which is why Paul said, "in the Torah you have the embodiment of knowledge and truth". That in itself gives credence that I am actually telling you the truth, because it is based on a concrete written foundation already laid by God through Moses. The Torah is very black and white, do this and do not do that. It is not a mystery what God wants us to do, just only idiots who discard the Torah and have no idea where they are standing.

 

[robycop3]

What I teach is unique and original and true, so no one "passed it to me" as if I'm a follower of some sect, except what God "has passed down to me", who has graciously given me a profound understanding of the truth, which I offer freely to the world. What sets me apart is that I teach obedience to the Torah, which most believers discard, and also being rich in good works by giving to the poor, which most believers also discard, and I also teach that paper money and fiat currency is the mark of the beast, which barely anyone in the world teaches. And aside from these things, I also teach many many other things that are unique and original and true. I offer a vast array of knowledge and understanding, available on my website, for free.

No, it's all invented. Scripture must be believed LITERALLY AS POSSIBLE. Most of what symbolism there is, is explained by other passages.

 

[robycop3]

I've never seen a man-made Chevy Mustang.

That's why preterism is just as phony.

 

[robycop3]

I do not believe preterism as you know full well. I believe as the Waldenses did, and Huss, and the Lollards, as well as the reformers that the POPE IS ANTICHRIST.
I believe the historicism teachings,the only non Catholic unddefrstanding of the prophecies.
I dodt know why you contend with me and not with the RC trolls on here . I suppose it is because you have inbibed their teaching.

TALX LIKE A PRET...WRITES LIKE A PRET...

 

[gaviria.christian]

No, it's all invented. Scripture must be believed LITERALLY AS POSSIBLE. Most of what symbolism there is, is explained by other passages.

No, literal scripture must be believed literally, and figurative scripture must be interpreted. This is what is called, "rightly dividing the word of God". Not all scripture is literal, and not all scripture is figurative. The parables of Yeshuah, the visions in Daniel, and the visions in the book of Revelation, are all figurative. And they have an interpretation. The book of Revelation says that the people of God will have the name of God written on their foreheads. Does this therefore mean that we will literally have tattoos of a name written on our foreheads in the future, contrary to the command of God that says, "you shall not put on tattoos"? No, it is figurative. And it is the same with the mark of the beast. It symbolizes a sin that is contrary to a command of the Torah. If you know the Torah then you know the mark of the beast. But if you don't know the Torah, then all you left with is just absurd fantasies regarding 666 tattoos and microchips. If the mark of the beast were that easy to discern, then most people would not take it, and if Apple Pay can barely become popular in the United States, how do you expect microchip implants to become popular globally? Pure far fetched fantasy not based on the understanding that the mark of the beast is already here, through fiat currency, which breaks the command of the Torah, "you shall have righteous balances and weights", which is therefore a sin that everyone on earth is caused to commit, and without it is nearly impossible to buy or sell without. So it fulfills the prophecy of the mark of the beast.

 

[David Kent]

Your PRETERISM is DEFINITELY a jeezit invention, and is as phony as a Chevy Mustang.

You are deranged. I am not a preterist but a Historicist the only teaching of prophecy which was not invented by Jesuits.

 

[David Kent]

TALX LIKE A PRET...WRITES LIKE A PRET...

When you can't answer you always lie or used insults.

 

[David Kent]

Your PRETERISM is DEFINITELY a jeezit invention, and is as phony as a Chevy Mustang.

My historicism was taught from the early church and was taught by the saints and martyrs through the ages. It is still taught by the faithful today.
Preterism wa taught by the Jesuit Alcazar deflect the teaching of Christians that the pope is Antichrist.
Fututurism was taught by Jesuits Belarmine,

 

[Shoostie]

The disciples were unaccredited men. Some mere fishermen. Yet God in his favor chose to grant these men profound knowledge and understanding of him. The truth that a man of God speaks is what gives him credibility, not his fancy titles and degrees from fancy seminaries.

There's no greater accreditation than spending three years with Jesus during his ministry. Some of Jesus' followers in the first century, especially Paul, were fluent in reading the Hebrew scriptures. God provided an outpouring of powerful miracles to empower the first century disciples. Are you really sure you want to equate some uneducated pastor down the block with the Apostles?

How do we determine what is true or not? By what is written. The Messiah uttered these words, "I did not come to abolish the Torah".

The New Testament never refers to Jesus as "the Messiah" except to instruct us to say "Christ". Also, Jesus didn't say he did not come to abolish the Torah, but he said "the law". Why do you reject the vocabulary of the New Testament?

the Pharisees who were very knowledgeable men in the Torah, but were also very blind.

No one figuratively blind thinks they're blind. Rather, they think they know enough.

 

[gaviria.christian]

There's no greater accreditation than spending three years with Jesus during his ministry. Some of Jesus' followers in the first century, especially Paul, were fluent in reading the Hebrew scriptures. God provided an outpouring of powerful miracles to empower the first century disciples. Are you really sure you want to equate some uneducated pastor down the block with the Apostles?



The New Testament never refers to Jesus as "the Messiah" except to instruct us to say "Christ". Also, Jesus didn't say he did not come to abolish the Torah, but he said "the law". Why do you reject the vocabulary of the New Testament?



No one figuratively blind thinks they're blind. Rather, they think they know enough.

The "law" means the "Torah". The "Christ" means the "Messiah", which means, "anointed".

 

[Shoostie]

The "law" means the "Torah". The "Christ" means the "Messiah", which means, "anointed".

The meaning of the words isn't at issue in my question. I asked why you reject the vocabulary of the New Testament and you refused to answer.

 

[gaviria.christian]

The meaning of the words isn't at issue in my question. I asked why you reject the vocabulary of the New Testament and you refused to answer.

The new testament wasn't written in English, it was written in Greek. The modern meanings of the English words "Law" and "Christ" no longer pertain to their original meanings, which are "Torah" and "anointed". That is why I use words that correlate better with the original words. People like you don't like it because you don't like the Torah, so you'd rather hide away the true meaning of the original word behind a watered down translation of a word, "law".

 

[Shoostie]

The new testament wasn't written in English, it was written in Greek.

The Greek word "Christ" has long been adopted into English. And, if you otherwise wanted English, then you'd say Anointed, which you have not said.

The modern meanings of the English words "Law" and "Christ" no longer pertain to their original meanings, which are "Torah" and "anointed". That is why I use words that correlate better with the original words. People like you don't like it because you don't like the Torah, so you'd rather hide away the true meaning of the original word behind a watered down translation of a word, "law".

Your statement sounds you're fishing for a reason. How do "Law" and "Christ" no long pertain to their original meanings? And, if they don't, don't you think you're part of the problem in refusing to use them with their original meanings?

When did the Greek word "law" ever specifically mean the Pentateuch? What else does "Christ" mean other than Messiah?

I love the Pentateuch and the entire Bible. I think when you're pointing the a finger at me about not liking something, you have three fingers pointing back at you. And, that thing you don't like is the Bible's Christian vocabulary, as well as the English equivalence. So, why?

 

[gaviria.christian]

The Greek word "Christ" has long been adopted into English. And, if you otherwise wanted English, then you'd say Anointed, which you have not said.



Your statement sounds you're fishing for a reason. How do "Law" and "Christ" no long pertain to their original meanings? And, if they don't, don't you think you're part of the problem in refusing to use them with their original meanings?

When did the Greek word "law" ever specifically mean the Pentateuch? What else does "Christ" mean other than Messiah?

I love the Pentateuch and the entire Bible. I think when you're pointing the a finger at me about not liking something, you have three fingers pointing back at you. And, that thing you don't like is the Bible's Christian vocabulary, as well as the English equivalence. So, why?

I could use the words "law" and "Christ", but I don't want to. I want to use the words "Torah" and "Messiah", because I perceive they are more precise to the original meanings. I gave my reasons why. Take it or leave it. I'm not here to argue over my usage of translation. I am busy.