Preterism-phony as a Ford Corvette

[jgr]

Established encyclopediae are unbiased works of histoey. Can you DISprove what he wrote?

You didn't answer the question.

Are you confident that what he claims is true?

Yes or no?

 

[robycop3]

Those signs that Jesus talked about in the first century were present in the first century.

Nupe. There was no great trib then, & He certainly didn't physically, visible return.

 

[robycop3]

And you have been wrong every time you have so stated this.

Newp! YOU have, in denying it. Unlike you, I showed evidence for my point.

 

[robycop3]

There is debate of when Revelation was given. I go with the time of Nero, last of the historic Julio Claudian kings.

Julius Caesar
Augustus Caesar
Tiberius
Caligula
Claudius
Nero

King 7 little horn person (end times)
King 8 the beast (the little horn person killed and back to life)

little horn - leader of the EU.
beast - dictator of the EU.

I know you mean well, Douggg, but you're making the same error prets make in counting the Roman rulers only from Julius Caesar onward. Remember, Rome was around some 600 years before Julius was born.

 

[robycop3]

The great falling away? where?
https://www1.cbn.com/how-christianity-growing-around-world
As Penn State professor Philip Jenkins writes in The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity, predictions like Huntingtons betray an ignorance of the explosive growth of Christianity outside of the West.

For instance, in 1900, there were approximately 10 million Christians in Africa. By 2000, there were 360 million. By 2025, conservative estimates see that number rising to 633 million. Those same estimates put the number of Christians in Latin America in 2025 at 640 million and in Asia at 460 million.

How many are actually Christians, I wonder?

And no one can deny the "new normal" is now open homosexuality, gender-benders, fornicators, etc. & that many church services are shams, just paying God a little lip service while concentrating on music & social events. This is worldwide, not just in the USA. That's the great falling away.

 

[robycop3]

You didn't answer the question.

Are you confident that what he claims is true?

Yes or no?

Yes. Why should he post guesswork, klnowing the reputation of the encyclopedia & of its authors would be permanently sullied by printing a fake report.

 

[jgr]

Yes. Why should he post guesswork, klnowing the reputation of the encyclopedia & of its authors would be permanently sullied by printing a fake report.

True.

 

[Hammster]

Nupe. There was no great trib then, & He certainly didn't physically, visible return.

And He didn’t say that He would. So it has still all taken place.

 

[Ed Parenteau]

How many are actually Christians, I wonder?

And no one can deny the "new normal" is now open homosexuality, gender-benders, fornicators, etc. & that many church services are shams, just paying God a little lip service while concentrating on music & social events. This is worldwide, not just in the USA. That's the great falling away.

If you would have read the article that I linked, you would have found out they are very conservative. I remember when Obama was president and tried to get homosexual rights in Nigeria, their president told him to take a hike because they don't accept that there.

 

[Douggg]

I know you mean well, Douggg, but you're making the same error prets make in counting the Roman rulers only from Julius Caesar onward. Remember, Rome was around some 600 years before Julius was born.

The reason for starting with Julius Caesar is because the 7 kings are related. Julius Caesar to Nero were 6 sequential leaders of the Roman Empire of the same family - called the Julio-Claudians.

The next dynasty were the Flavians.

The idea to make the kings the into kingdoms has been around for quiet a while now. Chuck Missler took that point of view. But I don't think it is right because it requires making the kings into kingdoms.

 

[jgr]

Yes. Why should he post guesswork, klnowing the reputation of the encyclopedia & of its authors would be permanently sullied by printing a fake report.

In response to my question above:
"You didn't answer the question.
Are you confident that what he claims is true?
Yes or no?"

You answered "Yes" as seen above.

As you'll notice, in agreeing that you're confident that the Colliers account is true, you've affirmed that account, as seen from the dictionary definition of affirm below:

Dictionary definition of affirm:
Essential Meaning of affirm
1 formal : to say that something is true in a confident way

Previously, you repeated information from the Colliers account.
Then you affirmed it.
You didn't have to explicitly declare that "this information is true".
You affirmed it simply by repeating it unconditionally.

Same with the commentators that I cited previously.
They didn't have to explicitly declare that "this information is true".
By repeating information from Josephus' and Tacitus' accounts unconditionally, they too affirmed them.

Now you know the synonymous relationship between "repeat" and "affirm".

You've demonstrated it yourself.

 

[Ed Parenteau]

Paul never denied the resurrection of the physical body, which he taught would be altered by the power of the Holy Spirit to an incorruptible condition when it was in a glorified state. He told Felix that he AGREED with the Pharisees' teaching about the resurrection in Acts 24:15. "And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow" (speaking of the Pharisees) "that there is about to be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust."

Then why would they want to kill him for teaching what they taught about the resurrection? He must have taught something different than their view of the resurrection, even though they both taught there would be a resurrection.
Paul said it is sown a natural (physical) body, it is raised a spiritual (supernatural) body. This perishable can not inherit the imperishable.
Everything physical decays. How can we be physical and unseen at the same time?
2 Corinthians 4:16Therefore we do not lose heart. Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day. 17For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, 18while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal.

 

[Timtofly]

Yes, the First resurrection was most certainly chronological. I Corinthians 15:23 tells us this. "But every man in his own order (tagmati); Christ the Firstfruits, afterward they that

The Cross was the first physical resurrection. All the OT who came out of Abraham's bosom.

The Second Coming is the resurrection of those alive on earth from corruptible bodies to incorruptible bodies.

The End is at the GWT. How many dead are going to receive Everlasting Life there?

All 3 represent a new permanent incorruptible physical body.

The resurrection in Revelation 20:4 is a first/physical resurrection to live on earth for 1000 years without dying.

 

[robycop3]

And He didn’t say that He would. So it has still all taken place.

Yes, He DID. Please read Matt. 24 & Rev. 20.

 

[robycop3]

The reason for starting with Julius Caesar is because the 7 kings are related. Julius Caesar to Nero were 6 sequential leaders of the Roman Empire of the same family - called the Julio-Claudians.

The next dynasty were the Flavians.

The idea to make the kings the into kingdoms has been around for quiet a while now. Chuck Missler took that point of view. But I don't think it is right because it requires making the kings into kingdoms.

Scripture makes kingdoms "kings" elsewhere, starting in Genesis.

 

[robycop3]

In response to my question above:
"You didn't answer the question.
Are you confident that what he claims is true?
Yes or no?"

You answered "Yes" as seen above.

As you'll notice, in agreeing that you're confident that the Colliers account is true, you've affirmed that account, as seen from the dictionary definition of affirm below:

Dictionary definition of affirm:
Essential Meaning of affirm
1 formal : to say that something is true in a confident way

Previously, you repeated information from the Colliers account.
Then you affirmed it.
You didn't have to explicitly declare that "this information is true".
You affirmed it simply by repeating it unconditionally.

Same with the commentators that I cited previously.
They didn't have to explicitly declare that "this information is true".
By repeating information from Josephus' and Tacitus' accounts unconditionally, they too affirmed them.

Now you know the synonymous relationship between "repeat" and "affirm".

You've demonstrated it yourself.

You're beating a dead horse. According to the dictionary, 'repeat' does NOT mean 'affirm'. Repeat means to say or write again, while affirm means PROVING it's true. In the 1930s, Goebbels often repeated Hitler's lies, but that didn't AFFIRM them; they still remained lies.

 

[Douggg]

Scripture makes kingdoms "kings" elsewhere, starting in Genesis.

In Revelation 17, in verse 10, it is "kings".

Then in verse 17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

The ten kings give their "kingdom" to the beast. So the kingdom of the 7 kings, and the beast, who is of the seven - is one kingdom. As in Daniel 7, the ten kings and the little horn come out of the fourth kingdom.

 

[Hammster]

Yes, He DID. Please read Matt. 24 & Rev. 20.

Once again (which you already agreed with me on), coming on the clouds isn’t a physical return.

 

[robycop3]

In Revelation 17, in verse 10, it is "kings".

Then in verse 17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

The ten kings give their "kingdom" to the beast. So the kingdom of the 7 kings, and the beast, who is of the seven - is one kingdom. As in Daniel 7, the ten kings and the little horn come out of the fourth kingdom.

But in Rev. 17:10, the 'kings' are KINGDOMS. The "6th king", the one that then was, was ROME, not Nero. And there were quite a few after Nero. After Gen. Galba ousted Nero, there were four in that year alone, counting Galba. Vespasian ended the turmoil.

No, V. 10 refers to kingDOMS. But I'll agree that the horns of the scarlet beast will be kings or rulers by whatever titles they'll have.

 

[robycop3]

Once again (which you already agreed with me on), coming on the clouds isn’t a physical return.

...Except He didn't then return, except that He is present whenever/wherever 2 or more are gathered in His name.