Preterists still won't give up...

[Yeshua1]

Oh dear you are confused. Yes that is what the Angel said, "The people of the Prince that would come would destroy the temple" Fulfilled literally, to the letter

Scripture says Jews. But scripture also says Revelation is signified, ie figurative,. Lose sight of that and you have lost the plot.. The ECF got it right, you have got it ALL wrong.



I don't agree with preterism but futurism is far worse. It is all imagination gone wild on some false idea as to what would happen in the future, remember the Jews got it all wrong when understanding prophecies of Jesus and his kingdom. Very few prophecies in the OT were completely fulfilled other than symbolically. One that was is Daniel 11 and you don't take it as such, Another is Daniel 9 which you add to to support your preconceived ideas.

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?

 

[David Kent]

We're getting away from the fact that preterism is false.

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.

 

[David Kent]

Are you a historical premil, as I am, a partial. or full preterist?

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

 

[robycop3]

Oh dear you are confused. Yes that is what the Angel said, "The people of the Prince that would come would destroy the temple" Fulfilled literally, to the letter

Nupe, not a bit confused. The prince hasn't yet come. But when he does, he will be of Roman descent. (Romans were all over the place. He could be British, French, Greek, or even American, as many people of Roman descent have emigrated here.

Scripture says Jews. But scripture also says Revelation is signified, ie figurative,. Lose sight of that and you have lost the plot.. The ECF got it right, you have got it ALL wrong.

Nupe again! Scripture names the tribes!

Rev. 7:4 And I heard the number of those who were sealed, one hundred and forty-four thousand sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel:5 from the tribe of Judah, twelve thousand were sealed, from the tribe of Reuben twelve thousand, from the tribe of Gad twelve thousand, 6 from the tribe of Asher twelve thousand, from the tribe of Naphtali twelve thousand, from the tribe of Manasseh twelve thousand, 7 from the tribe of Simeon twelve thousand, from the tribe of Levi twelve thousand, from the tribe of Issachar twelve thousand, 8 from the tribe of Zebulun twelve thousand, from the tribe of Joseph twelve thousand, from the tribe of Benjamin, twelve thousand were sealed.

So, you're wrong again. Those not of Judah, Benjamin, or Levi are not Jews.

I don't agree with preterism but futurism is far worse.

For not agreeing with preterism, you sure do support some of their poppycock quite a bit.

It is all imagination gone wild on some false idea as to what would happen in the future, remember the Jews got it all wrong when understanding prophecies of Jesus and his kingdom. Very few prophecies in the OT were completely fulfilled other than symbolically. One that was is Daniel 11 and you don't take it as such, Another is Daniel 9 which you add to to support your preconceived ideas.

I'm really srarting to doubt your credibility. Daniel 11:36 onward is clearly a prophecy of the antichrist, & it has NOT yet been fulfilled. And it's certainly not symbolic!

That's why I'm doubting your credibility. A great pret excuse is "The language is figurative/symbolic/metaphorical", so if you say you're not a preterist, your use of pret excuses to try to account for not-yet-fulfilled prophecy makes your claim untrue.

 

[robycop3]

Maybe but there are legends all around the world regularly. Egypt was full of them. Of course it was only on the land of Israel.

No, only the event in Israel was recorded in Scripture. God's writers weren't concerned with other lands, except those near Israel.

2 Chronicles 32:31 Howbeit in the business of the ambassadors of the princes of Babylon, who sent unto him to enquire of the wonder that was done in the land,

In the Land, the land of Israel. If it was worldwide, they wouldn't have gone to Jerusalem to see it.

MMRRPP! WRONG!

The wonder the Babs were interested in was the destruction of the Assyrian army. Remember, the Babs & Assyrians were at war. The sun went retrograde in Babylon same is in Israel, so the Babs wouldn'ta had to have gone to Israel to enquire. But the Assyrians were destroyed en masse only in Israel, breaking the power of their strong king Sennacherib. So, you're wrong again.

 

[robycop3]

I think most preterists have you on ignore.

If they do, they're using a CLUELESS COWARD'S weapon, cuz they can't answer questions nor defend their doctrine.

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.

WHO CARES?

It doesn't matter that a jeezit aroused the interest in preterism. What DOES matter is that it's FALSE!

 

[robycop3]

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.

If Scripture wasn't mostly-literal, men could make it mean whatever they wanted, and in fact, that's what many pseudo/quasi-Christian cults do! Either they change the wording of it,(JWs, Mor"m"ons) or invent new meanings for it.(Seven-Day-Adlibbers, many pentecostal branches)

I don't think the preterist teaching is viable.

Then, why do ypou defend so much of their junk, & use their excuses?

I think the futurist teaching is what Paul warned of in 1 Timothy 4:1

I suggest you read past Verse 1!

1 Tim. 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

EXACTLY what some cults & sects do today, including the RCC!

This is another example of LITERAL prophecy fulfillment. Preterism is included in this, as well as disbelief such as what you're exhibiting.

 

[Aaron]

As for my theory about a rogue planet causing the plagues of the great trib,

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha! *i can't breathe!*

 

[Aaron]

...Despite their absolute lack of any EVIDENCE to support their claims . . .

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.

 

[robycop3]

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha! *i can't breathe!*

Can YOU prove it impossible to ever occur?

 

[robycop3]

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.

No one but God can ACCURATELY predict the future, but my "assumptions" are based upon a literal-as-possible belief of the accuracy of Scripture. God, in His word, has made certain prophecies which have obviously NOT yet been fulfilled, but prets SAY they have been, but are unable to provide any PROOF they've been fulfilled.

Can YOU do any better?

 

[David Kent]

Tim. 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

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

Then, why do you defend so much of their junk, & use their excuses?

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.

 

[David Kent]

1.) But the desolation of J was NOT the AOD. 2) Do not forget 2 Thess. 2:3-4 and 3) rev. 13, which go hand-in-hand.

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.

 

[David Kent]

We're getting away from the fact that preterism is false.

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

 

[Aaron]

No one but God can ACCURATELY predict the future, but my "assumptions" are based upon a literal-as-possible belief of the accuracy of Scripture.

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

Can YOU do any better?

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.

 

[Aaron]

Can YOU prove it impossible to ever occur?

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

 

[thatbrian]

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

 

[David Kent]

No one but God can ACCURATELY predict the future, but my "assumptions" are based upon a literal-as-possible belief of the accuracy of Scripture.

Can YOU do any better?

"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.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

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.

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

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

Does your mommy know you are on the computer again?