Preterists still won't give up...

[Aaron]

I have the backing of actual history. the events prets CLAIM have already occurred, have NOT actually yet occurred, simple as THAT! No one can prove differently!

History as you imagine it, not how it was delivered to you.

Amos 9:11

According the first apostolic council recorded in Acts 15, this prophecy has been fulfilled. Do you agree?

 

[robycop3]

History as you imagine it, not how it was delivered to you.

Not so. I have Encyclopsedia Britannica, Collier's Encyclopedia, & other works of history right in front of me, as well as the whole internet.

Amos 9:11

According the first apostolic council recorded in Acts 15, this prophecy has been fulfilled. Do you agree?

Only partially. Judah has a sovereign nation again, but not the rest of Israel, far as we know.

And gentiles were saved very early on, as Jesus Himself saved a Roman, a Samaritan, & a Canaanite woman. However, the prophecy is still being fulfilled, as most Christians today are gentiles, but very few Jews.

As for the "tabernacle of David", Amos was referring to Jesus here. And yes, the apostles in Acts 15 knew the prophecy had been fulfilled in part. The council was about gentiles being saved.

But the apostles' knowledge wasn't quite 100%. Whil3e sexual immorality has always been a sin, Paul later preached & wrote to not question the source of any meat set before you, but to thank God for it & eat. In most cases, one wouldn't know if it'd been offered to an idol, or been strangled And SOME blood remains in any meat. (As this is not the "Jabroney False Witless" forum, I won't discuss the blood thingie here.) Not even those apostles could get completely away from the "Mosaic" laws. (Remember Peter refusing to eat with gentiles til Paul admonished him? I assume this was after God had sent him to Cornelius' home.)

But the prophecies we're concerned with here are the ESCHATOLOGICAL ones, the ones prets say are already fulfilled, but obviously AREN'T yet.

 

[Yeshua1]

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

Many of the Ecf, and those such as Spurgeon held to Historical premil, and would see premil as explaining best the Kingdom reign of jesus here in all of its fullness , as that has not happened yet in history!

 

[Yeshua1]

?

Are you familiar with that?

 

[prophecy70]

I guess not, to someone who believes Jesus has already returned & is now ruling the world.

If you do not understand what I believe why do you misquote me?

But NOT that Titus was the prince of Daniel 9.

Yes it was, there is nothing that implies differently, you pervert that passage to fit your preconceived idea.

the fact that now it's ACTUALLY HAPPENING. w
When I was a child, computers were the size of a house & used more electric than a whole village. There were no vaccines against polio, etc. Today, a businessman can start his day in NYC & finish it in Tokyo.

There are people alive today who remember when there were no antibiotix, no TV, few radios, no supersonic jets, no man-made satellites, no one had been on the moon, on & on. And knowledge is increasing faster than ever before. I remember the first cell phones just a few years ago - big as a suitcase, had to be installed in vehicles, limited usage.

On & on.

Deny all ya like; it'll only be false.

are you taking that from Daniel 12:4 and thinking thats talking about technology?

 

[prophecy70]

Many of the Ecf, and those such as Spurgeon held to Historical premil, and would see premil as explaining best the Kingdom reign of jesus here in all of its fullness , as that has not happened yet in history!

"I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion (temporal 1000 year reign), and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise." (Dialogue with Trypho, CHAPTER LXXX Justin Martyr

And Many did not believe it, so what it your point?

 

[Yeshua1]

"I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion (temporal 1000 year reign), and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise." (Dialogue with Trypho, CHAPTER LXXX Justin Martyr

And Many did not believe it, so what it your point?

Point is that the historical church NEVER saw full preterist as being orthodox, as all have seen it as being heresy!

 

[prophecy70]

Point is that the historical church NEVER saw full preterist as being orthodox, as all have seen it as being heresy!

How is that relevant to the millennium?

 

[Yeshua1]

How is that relevant to the millennium?

I was just asserting that full preterist is heresy.

 

[David Kent]

Many of the Ecf, and those such as Spurgeon held to Historical premil, and would see premil as explaining best the Kingdom reign of jesus here in all of its fullness , as that has not happened yet in history!

The ECF taught and historicist view, The writer were mostly pre mil although Covenanter has quoted Justin as saying that there were many at his time that were a-mil. Maybe but as far as I can see they have not written such.

The Kingdom of Jesus at present is the Church, where Christ Reigns. It will not come in all its fullness till Christ comes again and the saints take the kingdom.

 

[David Kent]

I was just asserting that full preterist is heresy.

That is a serious charge and one could equally say that futurism is a heresy,

But they are both only interpretations and I disagree with both.

 

[Yeshua1]

The ECF taught and historicist view, The writer were mostly pre mil although Covenanter has quoted Justin as saying that there were many at his time that were a-mil. Maybe but as far as I can see they have not written such.

The Kingdom of Jesus at present is the Church, where Christ Reigns. It will not come in all its fullness till Christ comes again and the saints take the kingdom.

Premil right there!

 

[Yeshua1]

That is a serious charge and one could equally say that futurism is a heresy,

But they are both only interpretations and I disagree with both.

The historical church has always claimed full blown preterism is heresy, as it denies the second coming as being future, and deny the physical resurrection of the saints. Futurism accepts both, so is not heresy, could be wrong, but does not rise to level of heresy!

 

[David Kent]

Many of the Ecf, and those such as Spurgeon held to Historical premil,

I am not sure what Spurgeon taught, he seemed to change his teaching over the years. I have seen him quoted as pre mil but I have also seen a quote from him that said he didn't no a great deal about prophecy as he was called to preach the gospel rather than speculate about the future.

A member of our church who is a retired pastor, gives a number of quotes from Spurgeon to say it is OK for us to celebrate Christmas, but I read in his Treasury of David, that he said that the Jews were told to celebrate only those festivals that God had ordained, and until somebody can show where scripture tells us to celebrate Christmas or Whitsun, we will not partake. (Writing from memory so wording won't be exact, but if anyone has the Treasury they may be able to correct me I think it was Psalm 80 or thereabouts.)

 

[David Kent]

Duplicated

 

[David Kent]

Triplicate

 

[David Kent]

The historical church has always claimed full blown preterism is heresy, as it denies the second coming as being future, and deny the physical resurrection of the saints. Futurism accepts both, so is not heresy, could be wrong, but does not rise to level of heresy!

I was not saying either is heresy, that is what you said. I consider both to be from the same stable,

I think heresy is teaching a different gospel of salvation. Only if you could prove that one or the other teaches that would I agree that it is heretical

On that matter you could google Is Dispensationalism a return to New Testament

 

[robycop3]

If you do not understand what I believe why do you misquote me?

Cuz apparently you believe some INCORRECT things.

Yes it was, there is nothing that implies differently, you pervert that passage to fit your preconceived idea.

No, YOU have a preconceived idea. Nothing indicates Titus was that prince. Remember, he did NOT wanna destroy the temple.

are you taking that from Daniel 12:4 and thinking thats talking about technology?

Yerp! Knowledge is increasing faster than ever before, and tech is among the areas in which it's increasing. NOTHING indicates otherwise.

 

[robycop3]

Point is that the historical church NEVER saw full preterist as being orthodox, as all have seen it as being heresy!

Correct. And Matt, 24:29-30 prove partial preterism false as well.

 

[prophecy70]

Cuz apparently you believe some INCORRECT things.

You believe a phantom planet is coming to earth. So ill stick with what I believe

No, YOU have a preconceived idea. Nothing indicates Titus was that prince. Remember, he did NOT wanna destroy the temple.

How is that preconceived? I take it at face value, the People of the prince came a destroyed the temple. It already happened in AD 70. Im not adding anything... you are.

Yerp! Knowledge is increasing faster than ever before, and tech is among the areas in which it's increasing. NOTHING indicates otherwise.

That has nothing to do with Daniel 12, but good try to take one verse out of the bible and add it to what you want.

Correct. And Matt, 24:29-30 prove partial preterism false as well.

That is just ignorant, based on the gospel according to robycop3