not again

[Iconoclast]

I have more books from Covenant A-Mills and Preterists than I care to admit to. However, my knowledge of their theology is not the point nor am I trying to say they totally disregard Scripture. In this thread I made the statement which you cannot refute that Delmar and Gentry (and just about any other covenant thinker out there) try to do, with a stright face make dispensationalist look silly by attempting to make the case that their theology is the stuff of dime store fiction.

You of course cannot argue the merits of this reality so you do what your theological heroes do and that is change the subject. The irony is that in trying to impress us with their scholarship, they end up using sophmore debate tactics.

Thomas
If you can answer these men scripturally that might be of some value.
offer some correction ...show the page number of the book you are correcting , so we can see what you are saying .
Do you think you can do this? To just claim things as you are doing does not inform us on anything.

 

[thomas15]

Thomas
If you can answer these men scripturally that might be of some value.
offer some correction ...show the page number of the book you are correcting , so we can see what you are saying .
Do you think you can do this? To just claim things as you are doing does not inform us on anything.

I can do anything, but for what reason? Pick up any book or read any article by any preterist, take your pick and the first thing they do to justify their nutty ideas is to start talking about the Left Behind Series as if it is serious theology and they have a rational and academic alternative to that madness.

But that still leaves the question of Babylon in Rev. Ch 17 being a code word for Jerusalem.

 

[JesusFan]

I can do anything, but for what reason? Pick up any book or read any article by any preterist, take your pick and the first thing they do to justify their nutty ideas is to start talking about the Left Behind Series as if it is serious theology and they have a rational and academic alternative to that madness.

But that still leaves the question of Babylon in Rev. Ch 17 being a code word for Jerusalem.

Just a few questions...

didn't Peter say that he wrote from "babylon" which the Church knew was code for Rome?

isn't Rome 'City on the 7 Hills?"

just saying, those people who hold to Jerusalem being Babylon might have to take a look at Rome instead!

 

[thomas15]

Just a few questions...

didn't Peter say that he wrote from "babylon" which the Church knew was code for Rome?

isn't Rome 'City on the 7 Hills?"

just saying, those people who hold to Jerusalem being Babylon might have to take a look at Rome instead!

I think it would be better for a preterist to defend their crazy belief that Babylon is Jerusalem Rev Ch 17 based on the information in the Bible rather than for me or you to make the case that Babylon is code for Rome. But, for what possible reason would Peter confuse Rome for Babylon or John to confuse Jerusalem for Babylon?

 

[Iconoclast]

I can do anything, but for what reason? Pick up any book or read any article by any preterist, take your pick and the first thing they do to justify their nutty ideas is to start talking about the Left Behind Series as if it is serious theology and they have a rational and academic alternative to that madness.

But that still leaves the question of Babylon in Rev. Ch 17 being a code word for Jerusalem.

Thomas,
Here is a small portion from Chiltons Days of Vengenance..let me know where the nutty ideas are.


http://www.rpts.edu/media/TheDaysofVengeance-Chilton.pdf

16 In their war against Christ, the raging nations turn
against the Harlot, because of her connection with Him. 19 The
angel portrays this new enmity toward the Harlot by a fourfold
description: The peoples of the Empire will hate the Harlot and
will make her desolate and will make her naked, and will eat her
flesh and burn her up with fire (cf. Jer. 13:26; Lam. 1:8-9; Nab.
3:5). Jerusalem had committed fornication with the heathen nations,
but in A.D. 70 they turned against her and destroyed her,
making her desolate (the same word is used in Matthew 24:15, -
Mark 13:14, and Luke 21:20, reflecting the Greek version of
Daniel 9:26-27: the abomination of desolation). One of the punishments
for a convicted adulteress in the ancient world was the
public humiliation of being stripped naked (cf. Isa. 47:2-3; Jer.
13:26; Lam. 1:8; Ezek. 16:37, 39; 23:29; Hos. 2:10; Nab. 3:5).
Another connection with “Jezebel” (2:20; cf. on 17:5) is
made here: The nations eat her flesh, as the dogs (cf. 22:15) had
eaten the flesh of the original Jezebel (1 Kings 21:23-24; 2 Kings
9:30-37). The prophets who spoke of Jerusalem as the Whore
had said that just as a priest’s daughter who became a harlot was
to be “burned with fire” (Lev. 21:9), so God would use Jerusalem’s
former “lovers,” the heathen nations, to destroy her and
burn her to the ground (Jer. 4:11-13, 30-31; Ezek. 16:37-41;
23:22, 25-30). Russell observed that “Tacitus speaks of the bitter
animosity with which the Arab auxiliaries of Titus were filled
against the Jews,20 and we have a fearful proof of the intense
18. Luke goes on to list some of these nationalities: “Parthians and Medes
and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus
and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around
Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and
Arabs” (Acts 2:9-11).
19. The destruction of the Harlot by her former “lovers” is inexplicable
apart from the hypothesis that she is Jerusalem. There is clearly a contextual
connection between the nations’ war against Christ and their war against the
Harlot. Their opposition is, first and foremost, against Him; their destruction
of her is represented as an aspect of their attempt to destroy Him.
20. Cornelius Tacitus, The Histories, v. 1.
439

 

[thomas15]

In the theatre of the absurd, which is figuratively called preterism, the actor is not aware of the fact that they are performing in that theatre called absurd. So they keep repeating the same silliness, night and day in hope that it will somehow make sense, but sense alludes them for time, times and half a time.

 

[Iconoclast]

In the theatre of the absurd, which is figuratively called preterism, the actor is not aware of the fact that they are performing in that theatre called absurd. So they keep repeating the same silliness, night and day in hope that it will somehow make sense, but sense alludes them for time, times and half a time.

Which verse are you speaking of? I do not believe that you know what he is even talking about. Show what he believes and why it is wrong if you can,

 

[thomas15]

Go thru Rev ch 17 and 18 and make a list of the many details of Babylon. Then try to make 1st century Jerusalem fit those details. It just simply doesn't fit.

The only way that this can be accomplished successfully is to liberalize or ignore the details.