ECT Israel's Prophetic Clock stopped in 70AD, not in Mid Acts

[tetelestai]

Prove that Lyke 19:44 is strictly about the temple. Otherwise, your question is based on a false premise.

It's not strictly about the temple, it's about the entire city, which includes the temple.

Not one stone was left standing upon another in the entire city.

In 70AD Josephus said that if a visitor came looking for Jerusalem, and was standing where Jerusalem used to be, the visitor would have no idea he was standing in what used to be Jerusalem.

Darby followers such as yourself don't like these facts because they present really big problems for Darby's Dispensationalism.

 

[Danoh]

Just be honest Danoh, and say you have no answer...

Just tell us?

What'd I say; folks?

You, Tet, "are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept," Luke 7:32.

Think I'll just enjoy your desperate need to assert your Preterist garbage going unmet :rotfl:

You are the perfect example of what I foolishly attempted to communicate to one person about the futility of back and forth soundbytes with some.

But, in their narrow minded stupidity, said individual responded stupidly, and took their ball home.

You respond just as stupidly...

The only sound byte you merit is that which a fool merits.

 

[ClimateSanity]

It's not strictly about the temple, it's about the entire city, which includes the temple.

Not one stone was left standing upon another in the entire city.

In 70AD Josephus said that if a visitor came looking for Jerusalem, and was standing where Jerusalem used to be, the visitor would have no idea he was standing in what used to be Jerusalem.

Darby followers such as yourself don't like these facts because they present really big problems for Darby's Dispensationalism.

Was it really a prophecy or was it simply knowing the future? Jesus knew where Phillip was standing before he met him. Jesus also saw into the future and described what he saw.

 

[Aletheiophile]

As with all schools of thought, given that individual minds are involved, the result at times, will be different understandings even within a same school's adherents.

MAD is no different in this, and Galatians 3 is one of those areas a few (not many) within MAD differ on.

I tend to be of the school of thought within MAD that the Apostle Paul is simply bringing out the fact that just as it had been the single seed: Christ, Who had actually made the promise to Abraham's multiplied seed possible; it is Christ Who now makes the Gentile promise - that Paul alone is uniquely asserting - also possible.

Here that is...again...

Romans 4:9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 4:10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: 4:12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

Your quote is evidence of my argument, that all is fulfilled in Christ. Christ is the end of the law. Why need there be a continuation of the old? There need not be a differentiation post-cross. That's what Paul is addressing in all of his Jew-Gentile discourse, is not to highlight the continued distinction between them, but to highlight that the fulfillment of both is in Christ.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Darby followers such as yourself don't like these facts because they present really big problems for Darby's Dispensationalism.----Tet

Luther followers like yourself don't like it that your so called facts are anything but facts because they present really big problems for Luther Christianity.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Your quote is evidence of my argument, that all is fulfilled in Christ. Christ is the end of the law. Why need there be a continuation of the old? There need not be a differentiation post-cross. That's what Paul is addressing in all of his Jew-Gentile discourse, is not to highlight the continued distinction between them, but to highlight that the fulfillment of both is in Christ.

Christ is the end of the law? I guess there is nothing with murder anymore.

 

[Interplanner]

Is the New Covenant not a part of prophecy? Yes it is. It appears the prophetic clock stopped on the road to damascus with the saving of a blasphemer of the Holy Spirit , which Jesus said emphatically was unforgivable. He was the greatest of the prophets and yet his words are directly abandoned with Paul's entry into the BOC. God stopped dealing with Israel as a nation here, including the promised new covenant. The new covenant will not be enacted until God starts dealing with Israel as a covenant people again.

The last two lines dissolve into the netherworld. God hasn't stopped the new covenant at all. It is about justification from our sins, and since there is one Gospel, it's certainly of use and in action today. The covenant referred to in the quote in Rom 11 is the same and takes away sins and is of use and in action today.

 

[tetelestai]

What'd I say; folks?

You haven't said anything.

You keep dodging the question because you know you have no valid answer.

You are the one who claims Israel's "prophetic clock" stopped in Mid-Acts.

You make your claim, but then when you are presented with scripture (Luke 19:44), you can't defend your claim.

 

[Tambora]

It's always singular in the Hebrew-zera and the Greek-sperma.

But that doesn't mean that the words are never applied plurally. They are.

There's more than one promise to Abraham.

In Galatians, Paul is giving assurance to Gentiles who are being told by Judaizers that in order to benefit from Israel's Messiah, they must submit to the law and be circumcised.

His reference to Christ as the one seed in blessing the nations does not cancel GOD's other promises to Abraham, which were promised 400 years before.

Right.
I don't believe there is a single verse where the land promised was to a single person.

 

[tetelestai]

Was it really a prophecy or was it simply knowing the future?

You might want to look up the definition of "prophecy".

Jesus also saw into the future and described what he saw.

So did John. That's why God told John the following:

(Rev 22:10) And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.

 

[tetelestai]

Luther followers like yourself

Are you a Catholic?

 

[Danoh]

You haven't said anything.

You keep dodging the question because you know you have no valid answer.

You are the one who claims Israel's "prophetic clock" stopped in Mid-Acts.

You make your claim, but then when you are presented with scripture (Luke 19:44), you can't defend your claim.

No. I do not wish to answer you.

I am never at a loss when it comes to these issues.

I have simply decided this is the only kind of answer you merit because you you ask questions only so that you can go against whatever does not fit your Preterist garbage.

Think what you want, hypocrite.

 

[Danoh]

Are you a Catholic?

What a moron :doh:

 

[tetelestai]

No. I do not wish to answer you.

Because you can't, and you know it.

You have said over, and over again that Israel's "prophetic clock" stopped in Mid-Acts.

It's a claim that is easily proven false with what happened in 70AD.

 

[john w]

Are you a Catholic?

Like you, greasy, slick one?

I have your own words, where you admit that you are Catholic. Want to see them again? Want TOL members to see your admission?


I thought so.


Are you an infidel? Rhetorical q.

 

[tetelestai]

What a moron :doh:

Um....you're the guy who claims Israel's prophetic clock stopped in Mid-Acts, not me.

You're really embarrassing yourself Danoh.

You have said over and over again that Israel's prophetic clock stopped in Mid-Acts.

Why can't you defend your claim?

 

[john w]

Because you can't, and you know it.

You have said over, and over again that Israel's "prophetic clock" stopped in Mid-Acts.

It's a claim that is easily proven false with what happened in 70AD.

No, he knows, what most of TOL knows-you are a greasy, slick, satanic con artist, engaging in habitual lying, sophistry, hypocrisy, the result of your "dispie" obsession, when your feelings were hurt a few years back, Craigie.

 

[john w]

Um....you're the guy who claims Israel's prophetic clock stopped in Mid-Acts, not me.

You're really embarrassing yourself Danoh.

You have said over and over again that Israel's prophetic clock stopped in Mid-Acts.

Why can't you defend your claim?

You are a moron, greasy one-more spam.


Get off this site. And get a job, instead of spending most of the day on TOL, to feed your obsession, instead of feeding your "family," infidel.

 

[tetelestai]

You are a moron, greasy one-more spam.


Get off this site. And get a job, instead of spending most of the day on TOL, to feed your obsession, instead of feeding your "family," infidel.

IOW, you can't tell us why Luke 19:44 was fulfilled in 70AD.

Or, is it you can't admit Luke 19:44 was fulfilled in 70AD because it in doing so, you refute Darby's false teachings (Dispensationalism).

 

[john w]

IOW, you can't tell us why Luke 19:44 was fulfilled in 70AD.

Or, is it you can't admit Luke 19:44 was fulfilled in 70AD because it in doing so, you refute Darby's false teachings (Dispensationalism).

Why don't you adress my last 75+ questions, you greasy, slick weasel?And stuff your "Darby" spam, you loser.


I thought so, you habitual, lying punk/moron. Is it because you cannot defend your Catholic/Russell/Hanegraaf false teachings?


See how that works, twit?


Get off this site.