- Feb 24, 2002
- 15,559
- 4,834
- 59
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
You are suggesting Parts of Revelation have already been FULFILLED?
How Preterist of you.
Welcome to the club
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Right, Revelation 12:1-5 refers to Jesus and His first Advent.
The 'club' I belong to, is the one where we use common sense and understanding of what all the Bible prophets have told us.You are suggesting Parts of Revelation have already been FULFILLED?
How Preterist of you. Welcome to the club
If that's what you call recognising historical facts.OK, but Again, what you are espousing is partial preterism.
And a set of totally unScriptural presuppositions "as lang's my arm" that you "interpret" the Scripture into "meaning".The 'club' I belong to, is the one where we use common sense and understanding of what all the Bible prophets have told us.
Congratulations, you're a partial preterist! Don't tell anyone else, they'll declare you anathema.From the historical record, it is obvious that the first five Seals were opened as soon as Jesus ascended to heaven. Revelation 5:6
It's specifically the abominable belief that the Church will be replaced by Temple Judaism and animal sacrifice in The Millennium that leaves DFs in the dark.We therefore, await the Sixth Seal worldwide disasters, the event that will commence all that is prophesied for the end times, leading up to the Return of Jesus. Thinking that all those vividly detailed prophesies have been fulfilled, is wrong and just leaves all those who do; in the dark.
That's precisely what it is.If that's what you call recognising historical facts.
Not all. For instance, orthodox preterists don't believe that our Lord has returned. We do insist that the Temple was rendered desolate and them destroyed, because it was. We believe that sacrifice and oblation ceased, becaise they did. We believe that Jerusalem was "compassed about by armies"because it was. It's a pretty safe bet that Nero was "The Beast", represented by 666. The only way you can argue against that is by saying that it happened but somehow didn't "count",which is ridiculous.What is seriously wrong is when full preterists force history to conform to their belief that all the prophesies are fulfilled.
I argue against the preterist view, because what has happened simply doesn't fit what is prophesied to happen. In many instances, there has been a preview of the last days events, this is just as Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 10:11.Not all. For instance, orthodox preterists don't believe that our Lord has returned. We do insist that the Temple was rendered desolate and them destroyed, because it was. We believe that sacrifice and oblation ceased, becaise they did. We believe that Jerusalem was "compassed about by armies"because it was. It's a pretty safe bet that Nero was "The Beast", represented by 666. The only way you can argue against that is by saying that it happened but somehow didn't "count",which is ridiculous.
I argue against the preterist view,
For example; we have a good record of the Roman conquest in 70 AD, by Josephus. He says that Titus did all he could to avoid the destruction of the Temple. He certainly never sat in the Holy of Holies, as the real Anti-Christ is prophesied to do.
As I said, I know historical facts and where they prove a fulfillment of the Prophetic Word, then that is hardly exclusive to the preterism that you espouse. All the prophesies about the first Advent of Jesus were fulfilled and we can expect the rest to be as well. Why not? Just because you don't like that idea?Even though you personally hold views exclusive to preterism....
Daniel 11:31 and 2 Thessalonians 2:4 plus the details in Revelation about the 'beast' are conclusive. At some future time there will be a new Temple, the Holy Land will be conquered by ungodly forces, Daniel 7:25, and a leader will desecrate the sanctuary. Daniel 9:26 That there has been a previous desecration; in 167 BCE, does not preclude another, one that will make a final and complete end to all those prophesies.There is not one single Bible verse that states antichrist was prophesied to sit in the Holy of Holies.
Not even one.
As I said, I know historical facts and where they prove a fulfillment of the Prophetic Word, then that is hardly exclusive to the preterism that you espouse.
Daniel 11:31 and 2 Thessalonians 2:4 plus the details in Revelation about the 'beast' are conclusive. At some future time there will be a new Temple, the Holy Land will be conquered by ungodly forces, Daniel 7:25, and a leader will desecrate the sanctuary. Daniel 9:26 That there has been a previous desecration; in 167 BCE, does not preclude another, one that will make a final and complete end to all those prophesies.
You are quite mistaken. I have nothing but hope and excitement about the future of the world!It seems that you and all who choose to discount the prophesies are a sad cases of chronophobia. Fear of the future is not something we Christians should have,
Such definitive statements make it easy for anyone to prove your errors.The fact remains that none of those verses you posted mention anything about the antichrist of scripture. Not even one. The bible contains very specific teaching on what antichrist is, and none of the verses you posted have anything to do with what the bible actually teaches the antichrist of scripture is.
Sorry, but there's no "The Antichrist" in Scripture. The term is made up.This person who is prophesied to lead a worldwide kingdom, Daniel 7:23, will refuse to acknowledge Jesus as Lord. Revelation 13:6 He, therefore, is a type of anti-Christ and is properly referred to as the Anti-Christ.
If you only look at Ezekiel 40 is a vision that God took Ezekiel through but this is seen again in Revelation as John is seeing *almost* the same thing in Revelation 21, the difference is Christ has conquered sin and death at the cross.If a Christian helps them build the Temple, are they going to participate in the physical services too, or do they just watch?:
‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “In the first month, on the first of the month, you shall take a young bull without blemish and cleanse the sanctuary. 19 “The priest shall take some of the blood from the sin offering and put it on the door posts of the house, on the four corners of the ledge of the altar and on the posts of the gate of the inner court. 20 “Thus you shall do on the seventh day of the month for everyone who goes astray or is naive; so you shall make atonement for the house. 21 “In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, you shall have the Passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten. 22 “On that day the prince shall provide for himself and all the people of the land a bull for a sin offering. 23 “During the seven days of the feast he shall provide as a burnt offering to the LORD seven bulls and seven rams without blemish on every day of the seven days, and a male goat daily for a sin offering. 24 “He shall provide as a grain offering an ephah with a bull, an ephah with a ram and a hin of oil with an ephah. (Ezekiel 45)
The "Literalist" speaks. So, because the bible does not say "The Zebra" the zebra does not exist....right? Makes just as much sense as what you just wrote.Sorry, but there's no "The Antichrist" in Scripture. The term is made up.
Yes, I can. This is still future, the House of Israel; not yet joined with the House of Judah, will repent and be ashamed of their iniquities. Deuteronomy 32:36, Isaiah 1:25, Amos 3:2, Ezekiel 20:34-36, Ezekiel 18:30-32, 1 Corinthians 3:13The on passage avoided is Ezekiel 43:
10 “As for you, son of man, describe the temple to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities; and let them measure the plan.
11 If they are ashamed of all that they have done, make known to them the design of the house, its structure, its exits, its entrances, all its designs, all its statutes, and all its laws. And write it in their sight, so that they may observe its whole design and all its statutes and do them.
12 This is the law of the house: its entire area on the top of the mountain all around shall be most holy. Behold, this is the law of the house.
Can anyone point to Israel ever being ashamed of their iniquities...or..get what the point of the passage is there.
We Orthodox Prets do take the Scripture pretty literally, at least by DF standards. Y'all pretty much just make it up as you go.The "Literalist" speaks.
Pretty lame analogy, though, isn't it? Or do zebras figure largely in DF doctrine? (Wouldn't surprise me much if they did. Y'all seem to be able to find lots of stuff in Scripture that isn't actually there.)So, because the bible does not say "The Zebra" the zebra does not exist....right?
I.E., you don't understand what I wrote. No surprise there.Makes just as much sense as what you just wrote.
BTW, do you believe the Civil War actually ended, or is there a thousand or so year "gap" after which the Confederacy will be reformed, the AntiLincoln will become president of the US, and the WBTS will begin again? <Laugh>The "Literalist" speaks. So, because the bible does not say "The Zebra" the zebra does not exist....right? Makes just as much sense as what you just wrote.
Again, no intelligent response just lame one-liners. <feeling sorry for you>BTW, do you believe the Civil War actually ended, or is there a thousand or so year "gap" after which the Confederacy will be reformed, the AntiLincoln will become president of the US, and the WBTS will begin again? <Laugh>
But I have yet to see the verse that says something like: I will take My people out of the world, up to heaven so they will avoid any nasty tribulations..
The trick is that "The Antichrist" is a construct arrived at by pasting together different, largely unrelated, Scriptures, and coming up with a kind of composite character you can conveniently include in your "interpretations" of many different part of the Bible to try and accommodate your made up doctrine. You take the Beast from Revelation, the Man of Sin from 2 Thessalonians, the antichrists of the Johannine epistles, and a largish dollop of creative license, and come up with a End Times booger man. But that's typical of DF doctrine as a whole, isn't it?
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?