Preterism, both full & partial, are false.

[Jipsah]

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.

Condsiderng that hyper-futurists beliee that no "end times" prophecy has ever been fulfilled, then they necessarily become partial preterists even they acknowledge that anythng our Lord said on Olivet has happened. They must deny history to maintain their extraordinarily silly doctrine.

 

[Jipsah]

No, I'm not.Preterism is false.

Because stuff that was prophesied and actually happen can't be true because that would sink your LIndseyite doctrine. We got that.

You can't defend the portion of it that you believe.

Defend it against what? Denials that historical events actually happened? Or the notion that the historical events happened, but that they "didn't count"? I'm sorry, but there's nothing there to defend against. You have a doctrine hung on a logical skyhook, and you have to rewrite history to maintain even a pretense that it has anything to do with reality. All we have to do is flip open a history book to show that they actually happened. YOu have to invent a Rube Goldberg notion of why they didn't really happen to protect your nonsensical doctrine.. You have to do the defending. So far you're not doing a very good job of it.

 

[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, & V21 was & is also fulfilled, but not V 19-20. And the last days are still going on.

 

[robycop3]

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

You're playing a semantics game also, as you can't defend your old statements. I won't play.

 

[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.

PFFTTT !

 

[robycop3]

I said it WAS fulfilled, & is still being fulfilled.

 

[DavidPT]

Condsiderng that hyper-futurists beliee that no "end times" prophecy has ever been fulfilled, then they necessarily become partial preterists even they acknowledge that anythng our Lord said on Olivet has happened. They must deny history to maintain their extraordinarily silly doctrine.

Some of what some futurists believe to be future, such as a rebuilt temple, animal sacrificing resuming, then being put to an end yet again, I reject those things myself though I too believe the 70th week is still future, or at least the final half anyway. There's more than one way to interpret things. Everything doesn't have to be interpreted in a literal sense everytime. Which is a mistake both Preterists and Futurists make at times by treating something not meant to be taken literally, literal.

An example, 2 Thessalanians 2:4. Some Preterists take the temple of God literally, that it is referring to the 2nd temple before it was destroyed. Some futurists also take it literally, but that it is meaning one that will be rebuilt in the future. But that is not the only way to understand that verse, that it has to be taken in the literal sense. Nowhere in that entire chapter is there support that this is involving the literal city Jerusalem and a literal temple there. Jerusalem is not mentioned one single time in that chapter.

Does the following support that a literal temple in Jerusalem is in view in verse 4?

2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
2 Thessalonians 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

That's pretty much the entire chapter, and that there is zero evidence in these verses showing verse 4 is involving a literal temple in Jerusalem.

And notice in verse 10, this----the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders. Then compare that with what is recorded in Matthew 24 and also Revelation 13, to name a few.

Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Revelation 13:13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.


If, though 2 Thessalanians 2 involves a temple of God, but that nothing in that entire chapter supports that it is involving a literal temple, why should one think Matthew 24:24 is involving a literal temple? Is not verse 24 meaning during the time of verses 15-21 in Matthew 24?

 

[robycop3]

Quote on that. (I won't hold my breath.)
On Dec. 10, 2018, the Jews consecrated an altar to be set up in their new temple when it's built, and re-institute the sacrifices. And Daniel 11:31 says the forces of the beast shall stop the sacrifices.

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.

OK, please tell us who the beast was, and who the false prophet was, and when did the beast sit in the temple as per 2 Thess.2:4?

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.)

Please answer the above questions.

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.

I have, as well as visited some synagogues in person.

 

[robycop3]

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?

Did the BEAST stop them, or the ROMANS? Scripture says the BEAST will stop them.

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

Right. Those historical events were just dry runs, zat it?[/QUOTE]

The destruction of J & the temple were the fulfillment of the "days of vengeance" Jesus proclaimed against that generation of Jews.

 

[robycop3]

Because stuff that was prophesied and actually happen can't be true because that would sink your LIndseyite doctrine. We got that.

Defend it against what? Denials that historical events actually happened? Or the notion that the historical events happened, but that they "didn't count"? I'm sorry, but there's nothing there to defend against. You have a doctrine hung on a logical skyhook, and you have to rewrite history to maintain even a pretense that it has anything to do with reality. All we have to do is flip open a history book to show that they actually happened. YOu have to invent a Rube Goldberg notion of why they didn't really happen to protect your nonsensical doctrine.. You have to do the defending. So far you're not doing a very good job of it.

Once again, who was the beast & the false prophet? When did they rule the world? When did the beast sit in the temple & demand the world worship him?

 

[robycop3]

Some of what some futurists believe to be future, such as a rebuilt temple, animal sacrificing resuming, then being put to an end yet again, I reject those things myself though I too believe the 70th week is still future, or at least the final half anyway. There's more than one way to interpret things. Everything doesn't have to be interpreted in a literal sense everytime. Which is a mistake both Preterists and Futurists make at times by treating something not meant to be taken literally, literal.

An example, 2 Thessalanians 2:4. Some Preterists take the temple of God literally, that it is referring to the 2nd temple before it was destroyed. Some futurists also take it literally, but that it is meaning one that will be rebuilt in the future. But that is not the only way to understand that verse, that it has to be taken in the literal sense. Nowhere in that entire chapter is there support that this is involving the literal city Jerusalem and a literal temple there. Jerusalem is not mentioned one single time in that chapter.

Does the following support that a literal temple in Jerusalem is in view in verse 4?

2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
2 Thessalonians 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

That's pretty much the entire chapter, and that there is zero evidence in these verses showing verse 4 is involving a literal temple in Jerusalem.

And notice in verse 10, this----the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders. Then compare that with what is recorded in Matthew 24 and also Revelation 13, to name a few.

Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Revelation 13:13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.


If, though 2 Thessalanians 2 involves a temple of God, but that nothing in that entire chapter supports that it is involving a literal temple, why should one think Matthew 24:24 is involving a literal temple? Is not verse 24 meaning during the time of verses 15-21 in Matthew 24?

Why should it NOT involve a literal temple? A literal temple was literally destroyed, just as Jesus said. As for 2 thess.2:4, there's nothing to suggest it's not literal.

 

[Jipsah]

Yes, & V21 was & is also fulfilled, but not V 19-20. And the last days are still going on.

And will be right up until our Lord returns, at which point your lot will probably protest that He has to leave and come back again to make your Rube Goldberg doctrines work.

 

[Jipsah]

PFFTTT !

Tht's the nearest thing to a cogent argument that you've offered thus far.

 

[Jipsah]

You're playing a semantics game

Hardly. We belioeve that what happened, happened. You believe that what happened either didn't happen or "didn't count". Either position is goofy.

 

[Jipsah]

Some of what some futurists believe to be future, such as a rebuilt temple, animal sacrificing resuming, then being put to an end yet again, I reject those things myself.

Of course.

though I too believe the 70th week is still future

I se that as purely a doctrinal contrivance, with no reasonable basis at all.

There's more than one way to interpret things.

That's what my 9/11 "truther" acquaintances maintain. Their interpretations are all based on conclusions they have arrived at a priori.

Everything doesn't have to be interpreted in a literal sense everytime.

Difficult to "spiritualize" or "symbolicize" literal fulfillments of prophecy. But the futurist is required to do so to avoid the necessity of giving over futurism.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Jipsah]

That's very interesting. Little or nothing to the point, but very interesting.

 

[robycop3]

Tht's the nearest thing to a cogent argument that you've offered thus far.

Appropriate for the horse feathers you've posted so far.

 

[robycop3]

Hardly. We belioeve that what happened, happened. You believe that what happened either didn't happen or "didn't count". Either position is goofy.

And "we" are believing incorrectly. No proof.

 

[DavidPT]

Why should it NOT involve a literal temple? A literal temple was literally destroyed, just as Jesus said. As for 2 thess.2:4, there's nothing to suggest it's not literal.

2 Thessalonians 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple(naos) of God, shewing himself that he is God.



Since Paul is the author, let's look at how he used 'the temple of God' in his other writings.

1 Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple(naos) of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

1 Corinthians 3:17 If any man defile the temple(naos) of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple(naos) of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.


I'm assuming you at least agree that he isn't meaning a literal temple in these 3 verses above, right? This at least tells us that Paul is no longer viewing the temple of God in a literal sense. Why should we assume he is still viewing the temple of God in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 in a literal sense? Why should we think Paul's mindset at the time involved the following. That he was expecting a 3rd temple to get built sometime in the future, and that the AC will sit in it, and that animal sacrificing would resume, then be put to end yet again, this time via the AC. Where does it even mention animal sacrificing in 2 Thessalonians 2? Where does it even mention Jerusalem in that chapter?

And since Paul was no longer viewing the temple in a literal sense, why should we assume Jesus was still viewing the temple in a literal sense when He spoke about an AOD involving the holy place in Matthew 24:15 in His far future of Him having predicted that? If 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is involving the holy place recorded in Matthew 24:15, and surely it is, and that Paul could grasp that it doesn't involve a literal temple, why should we think Christ couldn't grasp that as well, therefore, Jesus was meaning a literal temple pertaining to the holy place since He was unable to grasp a literal temple is not meant, but Paul could? Thus contradicting how Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 viewed this temple.

If you still think I'm wrong and that you are right, and I'm certain you do, then point out something in 2 Thessalonians 2 that supports that verse 4 involves animal sacrificing. Point out something in 2 Thessalonians 2 that supports that verse 4 involves Jerusalem in the middle east.

 

[Jipsah]

And "we" are believing incorrectly. No proof.

Then the Temple is still there, and sacrifice going on apace, at least in the HF universe. What happens if our Lord returns before your doctrinal requirements are met? Do you reject the doctrine, or the Lord?