Preterism-phony as a Ford Corvette

Spiritual Jew · Oct 22, 2021

robycop3 said:
...Except that it HASN'T YET OCCURRED. You simply CANNOT get by that big ole bear of a FACT.

Gentlemen, Gentlemen, GENTLEMEN...

You, Hammster, Ed, JGR, Spiritual Jew, etc. are all trying to sustain preterism by various paths & gates, but it just won't work. The ONLY thing that can sustain it is POSITIVE, EMPIRICAL PROOF that the eschatological events have already occurred,and you simply don't have that proof.

I'm not a preterist and don't agree with some of the things that the partial preterists here believe have already been fulfilled. But, I can also recognize that some things have been fulfilled or have an ongoing fulfillment. I can recognize that Paul was speaking about a time in the future in 2 Thess 2 that would occur before the future second coming of Christ, and he was not speaking about a physical temple at all, but rather about people in the church falling away and thinking that they don't need God anymore, thereby making themselves God. That is what Paul is talking about in 2 Thess 2 in a figurative way.

I also can recognize that Jesus did not only speak about His future second coming at the end of the age in the Olivet Discourse, but also about things that would happen locally in and around Jerusalem which did occur around 70 AD. To see everything (or almost everything) as being fulfilled in the past or almost everything being fulfilled in the future is a mistake.

robycop3 said:
It's self-evident.

Wow, that was a really strong argument you made here. While I don't believe all of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in the past, I also don't ignore the fact that Jesus was asked a question relating to when the temple buildings would be destroyed as He said they would be (Matthew 24:1-3, Mark 13:1-3, Luke 21:5-7). So, where in the Olivet Discourse do you think He answered that question?

jgr · Oct 22, 2021

robycop3 said:
English is my only language.
"Affirm" means to assert as true or factual.
"repeat" means to say, do, or write something again.
Now, please show us where Tacitus AFFIRMED Josephus' stuff.

If you'd followed the link, you would have seen that "repeat" is a synonym for "affirm".

But, as expected, you didn't.

jgr · Oct 22, 2021

robycop3 said:
Tacitus never wrote that he affirmed Josephus. account. He only repeated it.

You've presented nothing.

robycop3 · Oct 22, 2021

Spiritual Jew said:
It is not possible for a physical temple building to be "the temple of God" in the future. You're ignoring other scripture by coming to that conclusion.

Acts 7:48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, 49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?

Acts 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

We, the church, are the temple of God! No physical temple building built in the future can possibly qualify to be called "the temple of God". You have no way around that.

2 Corinthians 6:16 What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said:“I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.”

Ephesians 2:19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

the temple the Jews will build will be viewed by tham as a temple of God, & most of the world will call it such.

Now, the event of 2 Thess.2 MUST occur, as it didn't occur in the past. Now, while the coming jewish temple may not be an actual temple of God, the AOD will occur in it, as God told Paul.

And for a man to declare himself to be God would be an abomination anywhere it occurs, "the" AOD will occur in the coming new temple in Jerusalem.

robycop3 · Oct 22, 2021

Spiritual Jew said:
I'm not a preterist and don't agree with some of the things that the partial preterists here believe have already been fulfilled. But, I can also recognize that some things have been fulfilled or have an ongoing fulfillment. I can recognize that Paul was speaking about a time in the future in 2 Thess 2 that would occur before the future second coming of Christ, and he was not speaking about a physical temple at all, but rather about people in the church falling away and thinking that they don't need God anymore, thereby making themselves God. That is what Paul is talking about in 2 Thess 2 in a figurative way.

With all due respect, I believe he was speaking LITERALLY. There will definitely be a "beast/antichrist" who will be one man. He will have a miracle-working false prophet as a sidekick. (This man isn't introduced in Scripture until Rev. 13.) The beast will become ruler of most of the world. He will not be defeated by man & will reign until Jesus returns & casts him and his sidekick alive into hell.

I also can recognize that Jesus did not only speak about His future second coming at the end of the age in the Olivet Discourse, but also about things that would happen locally in and around Jerusalem which did occur around 70 AD. To see everything (or almost everything) as being fulfilled in the past or almost everything being fulfilled in the future is a mistake.

I agree. Some things (war & rumor of war, great falling away) are still ongoing, & the "fullness of the gentiles" is also ongoing.

Wow, that was a really strong argument you made here. While I don't believe all of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in the past, I also don't ignore the fact that Jesus was asked a question relating to when the temple buildings would be destroyed as He said they would be (Matthew 24:1-3, Mark 13:1-3, Luke 21:5-7). So, where in the Olivet Discourse do you think He answered that question?

I don't think He fully answered it. He didn't give specific dates for anything, except His time in the tomb before His resurrection. But He pronounced the "days of vengeance", which that destruction was part of, against THAT GENERATION of Jews.

robycop3 · Oct 22, 2021

jgr said:
If you'd followed the link, you would have seen that "repeat" is a synonym for "affirm".

But, as expected, you didn't.

I have dictionaries. Do YOU ?

robycop3 · Oct 22, 2021

jgr said:
You've presented nothing.

In YOUR opinion. OTOH, YOU'VE presented NO PROOF there were chariots in the sky above Jerusalem.

Claudius Ptolemy wrote in the 2nd century AD that the sun & planets revolved around the earth, a view that was believed & taught for over 1200 years until disproven by Copernicus. Ptolemy's view was often repeated, but was still completely wrong, although he had more 'evidence' than you have for Josephus' stuff to be true. So, you're still on Square One proof-wise.

jgr · Oct 22, 2021

robycop3 said:
I have dictionaries. Do YOU ?

No wonder you can't understand. A dictionary is not a thesaurus.

Do you know what a thesaurus is?

Do you know what a synonym is?

Do you know how to follow a link?

Ed Parenteau · Oct 22, 2021

robycop3 said:
Now, the "days of vengeance" was NOT the great trib. That trib will be WORLDWIDE, not just limited to Jerusalem. Its worst events are mentioned in Rev. 16.

Then let's take a literal look at Rev 16:20Then every island fled, and no mountain could be found.
-Here we see that since there were no more islands and no more mountains left, the whole earth has become like a billiard ball. Just oceans and flat ground.

21And great hailstones weighing almost a hundred pounds each rained down on them from above. And men cursed God for the plague of hail, because it was so horrendous.
Now the whole earth is bombarded by 100 lb hailstones. Hailstones of that size would reach a terminal velocity of 525 mph and would produce a force of 960,000 foot pounds. Now the whole earth has a blanket of ice 3 or 4 feet deep and nothing could possibly be left alive. If the hail didn't splat them, they would all freeze to death. Then if it thawed, the whole earth would be under water.
If you understand John's visions to be taken literally, this is what you have to believe.

jgr · Oct 22, 2021

robycop3 said:
In YOUR opinion. OTOH, YOU'VE presented NO PROOF there were chariots in the sky above Jerusalem.

Claudius Ptolemy wrote in the 2nd century AD that the sun & planets revolved around the earth, a view that was believed & taught for over 1200 years until disproven by Copernicus. Ptolemy's view was often repeated, but was still completely wrong, although he had more 'evidence' than you have for Josephus' stuff to be true. So, you're still on Square One proof-wise.

You've been claiming that Josephus' account was a fabrication, but every reference to it in the entirety of Christian orthodoxy to this moment in time is a rebuttal of that claim.

Some would characterize your claim as the product of a one-man cult.

Spiritual Jew · Oct 22, 2021

robycop3 said:
With all due respect, I believe he was speaking LITERALLY.

Yeah, I've gathered that. But, there is a huge problem with interpreting it that way because no future physical temple building could possibly qualify as being "the temple of God". And in other verses Paul referred to the church as the temple of God. You have no way around that, but you will try, anyway.

There will definitely be a "beast/antichrist" who will be one man. He will have a miracle-working false prophet as a sidekick. (This man isn't introduced in Scripture until Rev. 13.) The beast will become ruler of most of the world. He will not be defeated by man & will reign until Jesus returns & casts him and his sidekick alive into hell.

Can you explain how the beast can be a man in light of the following verse:

Revelation 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

We can see here that the beast "was" before John wrote the book of Revelation and it "is not" at the time he wrote the book and would later "ascend out of the bottomless pit". How can this be describing a man? That would mean the man was already alive a long time ago. And, how can a man be in the bottomless pit and ascend from it exactly?

I agree. Some things (war & rumor of war, great falling away) are still ongoing, & the "fullness of the gentiles" is also ongoing.

Glad we can agree about something, at least.

I don't think He fully answered it. He didn't give specific dates for anything, except His time in the tomb before His resurrection. But He pronounced the "days of vengeance", which that destruction was part of, against THAT GENERATION of Jews.

Of course He didn't give specific dates, but He certainly did answer the question. So, I'm asking you in which verses you believe He answered the question about when the temple buildings standing at that time would be destroyed?

Timtofly · Oct 22, 2021

Ed Parenteau said:
Then let's take a literal look at Rev 16:20Then every island fled, and no mountain could be found.
-Here we see that since there were no more islands and no more mountains left, the whole earth has become like a billiard ball. Just oceans and flat ground.

21And great hailstones weighing almost a hundred pounds each rained down on them from above. And men cursed God for the plague of hail, because it was so horrendous.
Now the whole earth is bombarded by 100 lb hailstones. Hailstones of that size would reach a terminal velocity of 525 mph and would produce a force of 960,000 foot pounds. Now the whole earth has a blanket of ice 3 or 4 feet deep and nothing could possibly be left alive. If the hail didn't splat them, they would all freeze to death. Then if it thawed, the whole earth would be under water.
If you understand John's visions to be taken literally, this is what you have to believe.

At this point, there would no longer be water at all as in any ocean. With most water being burned up, or turned into blood. If one is going to take this literally, then the earth will be leveled, no more mountains and no more ocean, but flat and level. Nothing will be flooded, but one would think that if the mountains are level and the ocean floor is level with the surface of the earth, that would mean the water would cover the land. There literally will be no more water. That should not be hard for some, as many think the earth in the past did not have water at all. We know from Genesis that only water existed and land was brought out of the water. At the Second Coming and post Second Coming, all the oceans will have lost their water by fire, or changing the water into something other than water, ie blood. By the end at Armageddon, no water at all, meaning no oceans, and no mountains. Just a level surface of land.

Hammster · Oct 22, 2021

robycop3 said:
It's self-evident.

Lol. So is that the level of proof you’ll accept? Fine. Then it’s self-evident that Matthew 24 is about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, and Christ’s coming on the clouded, is all first century.

Ed Parenteau · Oct 22, 2021

Timtofly said:
At this point, there would no longer be water at all as in any ocean. With most water being burned up, or turned into blood. If one is going to take this literally, then the earth will be leveled, no more mountains and no more ocean, but flat and level. Nothing will be flooded, but one would think that if the mountains are level and the ocean floor is level with the surface of the earth, that would mean the water would cover the land. There literally will be no more water. That should not be hard for some, as many think the earth in the past did not have water at all. We know from Genesis that only water existed and land was brought out of the water. At the Second Coming and post Second Coming, all the oceans will have lost their water by fire, or changing the water into something other than water, ie blood. By the end at Armageddon, no water at all, meaning no oceans, and no mountains. Just a level surface of land.

Could you make your case using scripture, as I'm not sure how you're drawing your conclusions.

robycop3 · Oct 22, 2021

jgr said:
No wonder you can't understand. A dictionary is not a thesaurus.

Do you know what a thesaurus is?

Do you know what a synonym is?

Do you know how to follow a link?

I know how to look up the meanings of English words. Repeat and affirm aren't synonyms.
Do you know what "definition" is?
If Donald Trump said "The election was stolen from me." & I wrote 'Donand Trump said "The election was stolen from me." 'would I be affirming what Trump said as true, or would I be repeating it?

robycop3 · Oct 22, 2021

Ed Parenteau said:
Then let's take a literal look at Rev 16:20Then every island fled, and no mountain could be found.
-Here we see that since there were no more islands and no more mountains left, the whole earth has become like a billiard ball. Just oceans and flat ground.

21And great hailstones weighing almost a hundred pounds each rained down on them from above. And men cursed God for the plague of hail, because it was so horrendous.
Now the whole earth is bombarded by 100 lb hailstones. Hailstones of that size would reach a terminal velocity of 525 mph and would produce a force of 960,000 foot pounds. Now the whole earth has a blanket of ice 3 or 4 feet deep and nothing could possibly be left alive. If the hail didn't splat them, they would all freeze to death. Then if it thawed, the whole earth would be under water.
If you understand John's visions to be taken literally, this is what you have to believe.

But JESUS said if the trib wasn't cut short, then NO FLESH(man or animal) would survive. So, why couldn't it be literal?

robycop3 · Oct 22, 2021

jgr said:
You've been claiming that Josephus' account was a fabrication, but every reference to it in the entirety of Christian orthodoxy to this moment in time is a rebuttal of that claim.

Some would characterize your claim as the product of a one-man cult.

No, it's not. There's not one "This account is true" among later references to it.

robycop3 · Oct 22, 2021

Spiritual Jew said:
Yeah, I've gathered that. But, there is a huge problem with interpreting it that way because no future physical temple building could possibly qualify as being "the temple of God". And in other verses Paul referred to the church as the temple of God. You have no way around that, but you will try, anyway.

Now, how could a man sit in another man??????????????????

Can you explain how the beast can be a man in light of the following verse:

Revelation 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

We can see here that the beast "was" before John wrote the book of Revelation and it "is not" at the time he wrote the book and would later "ascend out of the bottomless pit". How can this be describing a man? That would mean the man was already alive a long time ago. And, how can a man be in the bottomless pit and ascend from it exactly?

The beast of Rev. 17 is the coming antichrist's empire. "Beast" is a term used for both the man and his empire.

Glad we can agree about something, at least.

When you're right, you're right. When I'm right, I'm right. When you're hot, you're hot.

Of course He didn't give specific dates, but He certainly did answer the question. So, I'm asking you in which verses you believe He answered the question about when the temple buildings standing at that time would be destroyed?

I believe He answered them about the temple, but without a time frame in this verse-Matt. 24: 6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
It's pretty well repeated in Luke 21:9.

jgr · Oct 22, 2021

robycop3 said:
I know how to look up the meanings of English words. Repeat and affirm aren't synonyms.
Do you know what "definition" is?
If Donald Trump said "The election was stolen from me." & I wrote 'Donand Trump said "The election was stolen from me." 'would I be affirming what Trump said as true, or would I be repeating it?

A thesaurus does not contain meanings. It contains synonyms.

Obviously you didn't follow the link, which shows "repeat" as a synonym for "affirm".

Your example is illegitimate.

Legitimate example:

Someone: "The election was stolen from Donald Trump"
You: "The election was stolen from Donald Trump"

"You" are repeating and affirming "Someone".

robycop3 · Oct 22, 2021

Hammster said:
Lol. So is that the level of proof you’ll accept? Fine. Then it’s self-evident that Matthew 24 is about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, and Christ’s coming on the clouded, is all first century.

Oh, REALLY? Then, why hasn't He already returned?

Preterism-phony as a Ford Corvette

Amillennialist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Amillennialist

Well-Known Member

Psalm 144:1

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency