Preterism, both full & partial, are false.

[robycop3]

How about the cessation of sacrifice and oblation? That one fulfilled or nay? I wanna see how preterist you really are.

The beast didn't make them stop. The Jews plan to start them again when they build their new temple.

 

[robycop3]

Own it, mate. You've been railing against part prets and all this time you are one! That's pretty bleedin' hilarious! Say, "Oh, those aren't End Times prophecies" is laughable. You've outted yourself, homie. <ROFL>

You can't counter the facts I've posted, so you engage in silly semantics. Typical of a whupped puppy.

 

[Jipsah]

You can't counter the facts I've posted, so you engage in silly semantics. Typical of a whupped puppy.

Make up your mind, matey. The Scriptures you mentioned have been fulfilled or they haven't. If you believe they have, you're partial preterist whether you ike it or not,no weaseling will help you. If you don't believe they have, you're just ignoring reality to protect your doctrine. None of the posturing helps at all.

 

[Jipsah]

The beast didn't make them stop.

They stopped or they didn't, homey. Pick one and run with it. "Oh, they stopped but it didn't count" is simply ridiculous.

The Jews plan to start them again when they build their new temple.

What, three Jews, or a dozen? Baloney. Your doctrine is absurd.

 

[robycop3]

They stopped or they didn't, homey. Pick one and run with it. "Oh, they stopped but it didn't count" is simply ridiculous.

No, your supposition is. Scripture says THE BEAST will make the sacrifices stop. Since the beast didn't come & stop them in the old temple, there must be a new temple for him to stop them in. I believe Scripture over man's guesswork.

What, three Jews, or a dozen? Baloney. Your doctrine is absurd.

No, your guess is. Just ask a few devout Jews if they intend to build a new temple in Israel or not.

 

[robycop3]

Make up your mind, matey. The Scriptures you mentioned have been fulfilled or they haven't. If you believe they have, you're partial preterist whether you ike it or not,no weaseling will help you. If you don't believe they have, you're just ignoring reality to protect your doctrine. None of the posturing helps at all.

The eschatological events are included in the preterist myth, not the events everyone knows for sure have happened. And the eschatological events haven't yet happened. (I see you at least know Jesus hasn't yet returned.)

 

[parousia70]

Obviously, the destruction of J & the temple, etc. were not end-time prophecies.

How about this one:
Acts 2:15-21

15 For these are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. 16 But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:

17 ‘And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God,
That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh;
Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
Your young men shall see visions,
Your old men shall dream dreams.
18 And on My menservants and on My maidservants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days;
And they shall prophesy.
19 I will show wonders in heaven above
And signs in the earth beneath:
Blood and fire and vapor of smoke.
20 The sun shall be turned into darkness,
And the moon into blood,
Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord.
21 And it shall come to pass
That whoever calls on the name of the Lord
Shall be saved.’


Peter Porclaims that at least vs 17-18 of Joel's "Last Days" eschatological prophesy were fulfilled that day, right in front of their eyes.

Do you agree with Peter?

 

[robycop3]

How about this one:
Acts 2:15-21

15 For these are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. 16 But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:

17 ‘And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God,
That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh;
Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
Your young men shall see visions,
Your old men shall dream dreams.
18 And on My menservants and on My maidservants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days;
And they shall prophesy.
19 I will show wonders in heaven above
And signs in the earth beneath:
Blood and fire and vapor of smoke.
20 The sun shall be turned into darkness,
And the moon into blood,
Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord.
21 And it shall come to pass
That whoever calls on the name of the Lord
Shall be saved.’


Peter Porclaims that at least vs 17-18 of Joel's "Last Days" eschatological prophesy were fulfilled that day, right in front of their eyes.

Do you agree with Peter?

Yes, & also V 21is fulfilled, but not 19 & 20. And the last days are still going on, of course..

 

[parousia70]

Peter Porclaims that at least vs 17-18 of Joel's "Last Days" eschatological prophesy were fulfilled that day, right in front of their eyes.
Do you agree with Peter?

Yes, & also V 21is fulfilled

Well, ONLY preterists believe ANY Last Days Prophesy has already been fulfilled.
So I suppose Congratulations are in order!
Welcome to Partial Preterism.

 

[robycop3]

Once again, you're playing the semantics game, & I won't play it any more. I'm not a pret, nor do I believe any other false doctrine of faith/worship.

 

[parousia70]

Once again, you're playing the semantics game, & I won't play it any more. I'm not a pret, nor do I believe any other false doctrine of faith/worship.

You can pretend to mask your own preterism all you want, but BY YOUR OWN SEMANTIC DEFINITION OF WHAT PRETERISM IS, THAT YOU PROVIDED IN THIS VERY THREAD, you are a preterist.

Again, Congratulations.

 

[DavidPT]

Well, ONLY preterists believe ANY Last Days Prophesy has already been fulfilled.
So I suppose Congratulations are in order!
Welcome to Partial Preterism.

The more I think about it, Preterism is only relevant if something is debatable. And since some things aren't debatable, thus no one disputes it, such as what happened in 70 AD, that hardly makes one a Preterist because they agree with that. OTOH, since Matthew 24:30-31 is debatable, though it shouldn't be, it is passages like that which define who are Preterists and who are not. And the same would be true of Matthew 24:15-26 as well, and also Matthew 24:34, to name a few. And I never even realized this myself until I noted what robycop3 has been saying per some of these latter posts in this thread. And now that I've pondered it, I would have to say I agree with him about this.

 

[robycop3]

You can pretend to mask your own preterism all you want, but BY YOUR OWN SEMANTIC DEFINITION OF WHAT PRETERISM IS, THAT YOU PROVIDED IN THIS VERY THREAD, you are a preterist.

Again, Congratulations.

No, I'm not. Preterism is false. You can't defend the portion of it that you believe.

 

[parousia70]

The more I think about it, Preterism is only relevant if something is debatable. And since some things aren't debatable, thus no one disputes it

Not sure I follow... are you saying preterism is only a thing if there are people who DON'T believe in it?

Again, I don't follow the logic..

such as what happened in 70 AD, that hardly makes one a Preterist because they agree with that.

Is the claim that Luke 21:20-22 was fulfilled in 66-70AD Debatable, or no?:

20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

Can you be a non-preterist and believe all things written were fulfilled in Jerusalems destruction?

The truth is, All Bible believing Christians hold to some degree of preterism.

But, kinda like Gay Republicans, some preterists like Robycop will publicly argue against their own deeply held views, for a variety of reasons.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Why are you insisting I'm avoiding doing that when I already did that in the past, not avoided it?

No, you absolutely have not done that in the past.

Such as, via some of the following.

I have explained in other posts relating to this, that Daniel 12:1 and Matthew 24:21 are involving the same era of time and that Daniel 12:2 proves that Matthew 24:21 isn't meaning 2000 years ago since no resurrection event ever followed any of that. The way you try and get around that, Matthew 24:21 and Daniel 12:1 are not involving the same events. The former is meaning much earlier, the latter is meaning much later. Which then, if true, has Jesus contradicting Himself in Matthew 24:21 when He said---such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be---and that if this happens later in time---and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time

Let's look at these statements side by side, so to speak.


such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be
and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time

In the latter it says since there was a nation. In the former it says since the beginning of the world. So, since the beginning of this world, when did nations first come into being? Pretty much at the beginning of time, or at least right after Noah's flood.

The former says this---such as was not--no, nor ever shall be
The latter says this---such as never was--even to that same time

And the latter makes sense exactly how if the former is meaning prior to the latter? Per the former, what part of---no, nor ever shall be--is being misunderstood here? Does it not mean that there can never be a time equal to it or greater than it since the beginning of the world? How would that still be true if Daniel 12:1 is meaning a time sometime after Matthew 24:21 is meaning?

No no no. You completely missed my point. What I'm trying to get you to do is show when, during His Olivet Discourse, Jesus said what is recorded in Matthew 24:15-22 and when He said what is recorded in Luke 21:20-24. I'm not asking you when you believe each occurred or will occur.

Do you understand what I'm asking you to do? I'm asking you to show the sequence of Jesus's words as He spoke them in the Olivet Discourse. Do you think He said what is recorded in Matthew 24:15-22 before or after what is recorded in Luke 21:20-24? Can you please somehow show the sequence of what He said and when during the Olivet Discourse? I'm not asking you to do this for the entire Olivet Discourse, but just up to the point where He said what He did in Matthew 24:15-22 (or Luke 21:20-24 if you think He said that after what He said in Matthew 24:15-22).

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Weren't you recently involved in a debate with Timtofly involving something along those lines?

Yeah, I guess he's the one person who believes Luke 21 is an entirely different discourse than Matthew 24 and Mark 13. Is it really worth it to take much time and effort to refute something only one person here believes? Probably not, right?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Yes, & also V 21is fulfilled, but not 19 & 20. And the last days are still going on, of course..

How is Acts 2:21 already fulfilled? Aren't people still calling on the name of the Lord and being saved? Or are you just saying it began to be fulfilled already back then (on the day of Pentecost)?

 

[DavidPT]

Not sure I follow... are you saying preterism is only a thing if there are people who DON'T believe in it?

Again, I don't follow the logic..

If everyone are in agreement about certain events, thus no one disputes them, such as, Christ died and rose 2000 years ago, that Christ ascended into heaven 2000 years ago, that Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed 2000 years ago, etc, this is not a matter of preterism vs futurism.

But, if it involves something, such as the coming recorded in Matthew 24:30, now it is a matter of preterism vs futurism if futurists insist this is meaning the 2nd coming in the end of this age, and that Preterists disagree with that. Per this scenario Preterism would be relevant since there is more than just one way to understand the timing of these events, unlike the events involving what I initially submitted. By me saying that Preterism would only be relevant if involving things that are debatable, is not necessarily saying anything bad about Preterism. That does not equal me implying what you said when you said this---"preterism is only a thing if there are people who DON'T believe in it"

 

[Jipsah]

No, your supposition is. Scripture says THE BEAST will make the sacrifices stop.

Quote on that. (I won't hold my breath.)

Since the beast didn't come & stop them in the old temple, there must be a new temple for him to stop them in.

So if you don't think a historical event happened in accordance with your remarkably goofy man-made doctrine, it didn't happen at all. In engineering we often joke about people who want to change the universe to fit their design. For you lot it isn't a joke, if a hitorical event doesn't happen when and how your doctrine requires, you simply claim it didn't happen. That's worthy of a Monty Python skit. Pure absurdist comedy.

I believe Scripture over man's guesswork.

And you believe your made-up-from-whole cloth end times doctrine over either one. Still waiting for that 470 year prophecy that your lot insists really means >2000 because your beloved doctrine depends on it. Once again, of the design doesn't work, you change history, or try to. (News Flash - It can't really be done.)

No, your guess is. Just ask a few devout Jews if they intend to build a new temple in Israel or not.

Better yet, go to one of the many devout Jews who run an "Ask A Rabbi" site. They've been asked it many times, so dont be surprised if they're a little impatient wth you. Hye, who knows, maybe you can convice them they're wrong - but that ain't the way to bet.

 

[Jipsah]

The eschatological events are included in the preterist myth

Ah, so the destruction of the Temple and the cessessation of sacrifice are simply myths. Got it. So the Temple is still there, but has been cloaked in some way right? And sacrifice and oblation go on unhindered, and thinking otherwise is simply a myth, yes? Got it. And all the Jews are just waiting with bated breath for the signal to start excavation for the New Temple. Uh huh. No sack of Jerusalem, which was never compassed about by armies, comme ça? Just out of curiousity, you're not a 9/11 Truther, are you?

not the events everyone knows for sure have happened.

Right. Just like the works of Homer were really written by some other guy with the same name.

And the eschatological events haven't yet happened.

Right. Those historical events were just dry runs, zat it?