Well, I feel qualified to post here because cf has accused me of being a preterist for saying that the second coming was in 312AD when the sign of the Son of Man appeared in the clouds, and Jesus came into power through St. Constantine who rode a white horse and conquered with a bow. But I do not rule out a third coming, so I guess I am a partial preterist
The 5 horsemen of the Revelation are the good guys.do u think Constantine was a good guy or a bad guy?
do u think Zec14 was fulfilled in 312 AD?
This is a chart showing the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:
There's a hot discussion is open Eschatology Forum titled: "Is there a break in Daniel's 70 weeks? (Daniel 9:26)".
I think this chart to be accurate. Any comments?
We hold Post-Mid-Pre-Tribulation raptures to all be fallacious as they are all built on the single false premise of Dispensationalism to begin with. Make no mistake, I cannot overemphasize this enough: we do not hold even one iota of Dispensationalism to be Biblical or true in any way. Not one shred of it from A to Z. They whole of it is one false premise after another. For those who currently hold a Dispensationalist view, in order to understand Partial Preterism, they would basically have to start their eschatological studies from square one and with a blank slate. It would require no less than for them to cast off every previously held view of eschatology they ever had.
LOU, 1disciple is no longer a member of the forum. He left complaining about someone reporting him to the moderators.I understand how you can lump all post-tribulationalists under the umbrella of dispensationalism because when I first heard of 'partial preterism' I threw-up in my mouth a little less that I did when I read some of the things on the preterist archive.
But, looking back, I now know that we shouldn't do this.
I have always told my pre-tribulational dispensationalist family that Jesus second coming has been moving forward since He ascended into heaven so I was supprised when I read what you wrote as that was the very first time I saw it in writing.
I know that iron sharpens iron so thats why I'm posting here. I am a mature debator that loves and respect God's Word. I don't do well when there is presumption and name calling in debate because it is simply not Christ in us doing it.
So with your permission I would request open and honest debate right here in your safehouse.
I have questions that I need answeres to and I have conserns for the Church that need addressed away from all the noise of the many differrent theories being throne around in the forums.
Do I have your permission?
Then I would request an open agreement to peacefully question those who are here? One question/issue at a time.
Lou, what is it you hope to gain here? Understanding of partial preterism/amilleniallism?They would be safe with me. My intent is not to cause strife but understanding.
My word to you is that I will immediately leave on the word of one complaint.
I will not offend your safehouse.
OK Lou. Feel free to hit me by PM with your questions and I'll do my best to answer what I can. That way there's no problem with the "safe house".I just want some answeres to problems that I have with with things that are said to be past already.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?