Robert's Gospel According to the Apostle Paul

[Right Divider]

The historical eye-witness accounts from Josephus of the events in Jerusalem from 66AD - 70AD are a giant problem for Dispensationalism.

Only in your mind.

 

[tetelestai]

Only in your mind.

The destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD was punishment to the Jews for rejecting Christ Jesus.

Putting aside all the prophecy problems this causes for Dispensationalism, it also is a big problem for their ""age of grace" beginning with Paul" theory.

Dispies teach that God inserted a secret parenthetical time period, that was revealed to Paul, and that this secret time period called "the church age" or "the age of grace", God put aside His dealings with Israel.

The events that happened to the Jews in 70AD, are a major blow to the Dispies "the age of grace", and God having put aside His dealings with Israel theory.

God put His dealings with physical Israel aside for good in 70AD, not somewhere in mid-Acts.

Those who have faith in Christ Jesus are the Israel of God.

 

[Right Divider]

The destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD was punishment to the Jews for rejecting Christ Jesus.

To some extent.

Putting aside all the prophecy problems this causes for Dispensationalism, it also is a big problem for their ""age of grace" beginning with Paul" theory.

Made up.

Dispies teach that God inserted a secret parenthetical time period, that was revealed to Paul, and that this secret time period called "the church age" or "the age of grace", God put aside His dealings with Israel.

Typical straw-man misrepresentation.

The events that happened to the Jews in 70AD, are a major blow to the Dispies "the age of grace", and God having put aside His dealings with Israel theory.

Made up.

God put His dealings with physical Israel aside for good in 70AD, not somewhere in mid-Acts.

Made up.

Those who have faith in Christ Jesus are the Israel of God.

Nope.

In the Bible (as opposed to your bogus theory), Israel of God refers to believing Israel. Nothing more--nothing less.

 

[tetelestai]

To some extent.

But wait.....you MADists teach that Israel was set aside in mid-Acts.

Why would God still be dealing with unbelieving Israel 25 - 30 years after mid-Acts?

 

[musterion]

Someone has to be really devoted to the fairy tale of preterism in order to deny what the Bible AND his prized source, Josephus, both say. So sad but typical of leftists.

 

[tetelestai]

Someone has to be really devoted to the fairy tale of preterism in order to deny what the Bible AND his prized source, Josephus, both say. So sad but typical of leftists.

Josephus confirms that everything Christ Jesus prophesied about Jerusalem did in fact take place from 66AD - 70AD.

Moreover, everything prophesied in Revelation concerning the temple and Jerusalem is confirmed by the writings of Josephus.

 

[Right Divider]

But wait.....you MADists teach that Israel was set aside in mid-Acts.

Why would God still be dealing with unbelieving Israel 25 - 30 years after mid-Acts?

After effects.

Please start a new thread. You've run this one far enough off-topic.

Start one about how Jesus returned to set foot on Mount Olivet per Zechariah 14 (with Act 1:9-12).

 

[George Affleck]

Exodus 32:31-32 KJV
(31) And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold.
(32) Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.

Like that?

No

 

[tetelestai]

After effects.

(Luke 19:43) The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side.

" When Titus had therefore encompassed the city with this wall, and put garrisons into proper places, be went round the wall...... So all hope of escaping was now cut off from the Jews, together with their liberty of going out of the city." - Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 5.12.3-4

 

[musterion]

Preterism:

:mock: Luke 19:44

 

[john w]

Preterism:

:mock: Luke 19:44

It is also known as " Barbituartism"- a real downer, man...

I no longer debate with the likes of Craig on this "Preterism," this......

...as most sane people find it quite amusing, but harmless, and quite docile, no threat, and do not take it seriously.

 

[Rosenritter]

Yes it was, and yes it is.

Name one city that suffered more, either before 70AD, or after 70AD?

The whole planet that we now call Earth, back when the entire world spoke Hebrew, when the first rain began to fall. The whole planet is an order of magnitude larger than a puny city of said planet.

 

[Rosenritter]

LOL.....so, those dead 10 trillion people turned into coal and petroleum in less than 5,000 years?

I wonder why so many of those people lived in West Virginia back then?

I guess neither math nor science are your strong suits. Coal, petroleum, diamonds, and fossils don't take a long time to form. They merely need the right ingredients and conditions Where ever you have enough biomass (from people, plants, and animals) buried under post-flood conditions you're going to get the results.

http://www.wiseoldgoat.com/papers-creation/hovind-seminar_part6b_2007.html#formingcoal

[FONT=&quot]"Atheists say: “Well, it takes millions of years to form coal.” - “No, it doesn't. Coal can be formed in a few hours.” There have been [/FONT]many[FONT=&quot] experiments done where they form coal very quickly."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"Petrified trees in Alabama are standing up, running through two different coal seams. Oftentimes coal seams, go and dig along, pretty soon they come together; branching coal seams. Absolute proof they formed very quickly. Not millions of years different in age..."

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]"And human made artifacts are found in coal from time to time:[/FONT]

• Here is a bell found inside a lump of coal.
• Here is a vessel found in solid rock, supposed to be ‘600 million years old’.

So yes, that coal from West Virginia that we used to burn as fuel.... is made from people.

 

[Rosenritter]

Nope.

50,000 died at Nagasaki.

100,000 at Tokyo

25,000 at Dresden

According to Josephus, 1.1 million people died in Jerusalem.

Close to three million Jews in occupied Poland and between 700,000 and 2.5 million Jews in the Soviet Union were killed. Hundreds of thousands more died in the rest of Europe.

And that's not counting the Russian Communist holocaust which was much larger. WW2 was certainly a greater tribulation. You seem to lack perspective. If we skip Noah's Flood that destroyed all life on the planet save eight souls and a few pets, here's even what the non-bible believers acknowledge (below):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll

Starting with greater and moving towards lesser, the Roman-Jerusalem conflict comes in 44 on the list.

Considering that Jesus said it would be greater than anything that had ever happened, and the worst tribulation upon the earth up to that time had killed everyone but eight people, I'm inclined to think that his estimation that this GREATER Tribulation meant that unless the LORD should intervene, that "no flesh should be saved alive" that "no flesh" was meant in the literal sense.

 

[Rosenritter]

No

OK, I honestly don't understand the question, but I'm leaning towards "no".

 

[tetelestai]

Close to three million Jews in occupied Poland and between 700,000 and 2.5 million Jews in the Soviet Union were killed. Hundreds of thousands more died in the rest of Europe.

And that's not counting the Russian Communist holocaust which was much larger. WW2 was certainly a greater tribulation. You seem to lack perspective. If we skip Noah's Flood that destroyed all life on the planet save eight souls and a few pets, here's even what the non-bible believers acknowledge (below):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll

Starting with greater and moving towards lesser, the Roman-Jerusalem conflict comes in 44 on the list.

Considering that Jesus said it would be greater than anything that had ever happened, and the worst tribulation upon the earth up to that time had killed everyone but eight people, I'm inclined to think that his estimation that this GREATER Tribulation meant that unless the LORD should intervene, that "no flesh should be saved alive" that "no flesh" was meant in the literal sense.

The great tribulation was to happen to people in one city.

Nothing more devastating before, or after what happened to the Jews in Jerusalem in 70ad is still true today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[musterion]

It is also known as " Barbituartism"- a real downer, man...

I no longer debate with the likes of Craig on this "Preterism," this......

...as most sane people find it quite amusing, but harmless, and quite docile, no threat, and do not take it seriously.

You're right. Preterism is dying out anyway since it gives people nothing to hope for.

 

[Rosenritter]

The great tribulation was to happen to people in one city.

Nothing more devastating before, or after what happened to the Jews in Jerusalem in 70ad is still true today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1. The "destruction of every living thing in every city on the planet" in the time of Noah is certainly more devastating than "the deaths of many in one city on the planet" in the time of Josephus.

2. Jesus wasn't using qualifiers of "only within a single city" - you created that to try to keep your underweight contender in the ring. The question was in response to "what will be the signs of the end of the world" and the last I checked, "Jerusalem" was not "the world."

Matthew 24:3 KJV
(3) And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?


Do you see the disciples asking him "What shall be the sign of the end of Jerusalem?" Because I sure don't; it's not in the text. There may be a specific line for those who are in Judaea to flee to the mountains, but again, that's the whole country of Judaea, not a single city.

3. Finally, let's talk about the end of the world, since the reason you're clinging to an absurdity that "the revolt in Jerusalem was worse than the destruction of the planet in the day of Noah" ...

Matthew 13:39-42 KJV
(39) The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
(40) As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
(41) The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
(42) And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

In the end of the world, the field of the world is only Jerusalem, the righteous and wicked are judged and the wicked are burned up: the wicked are no more. In your scenario, the Roman soldiers must be the angels, the Jews are the tares, and the rest of Rome and its citizens are the wheat? Thus afterwards Rome continued onward to "shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father?"

All of that breaks apart. The destruction of one single city (no matter how large) is not greater tribulation than Noah's flood, it is not greater in grief than the World Wars which spanned more years and claimed more lives, and even your addition of "within a single city" was not a qualifier used by Christ but rather invented to prop up the failing claim.

Facts:

1. The world did not end in 70 A.D.
2. Jesus did not return with his holy angels and judge between the righteous and the wicked in 70 A.D.
3. The dead were not raised to meet him in the air in 70 A.D.
4. Far greater tribulation has afflicted this world than the death of one single city, and far greater is threatening it even now.

Mark 13:19 KJV
(19) For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.

Here's some more items for perspective:

"The Black Death is estimated to have killed 30–60% of Europe's total population. In total, the plague may have reduced the world population from an estimated 450 million down to 350–375 million in the 14th century."

How does over 100 million deaths sound for tribulation? But I still think that's trumped by the destruction of the whole human race down to 8 people.

 

[musterion]

1. The "destruction of every living thing in every city on the planet" in the time of Noah is certainly more devastating than "the deaths of many in one city on the planet" in the time of Josephus.

2. Jesus wasn't using qualifiers of "only within a single city" - you created that to try to keep your underweight contender in the ring. The question was in response to "what will be the signs of the end of the world" and the last I checked, "Jerusalem" was not "the world."

Matthew 24:3 KJV
(3) And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?


Do you see the disciples asking him "What shall be the sign of the end of Jerusalem?" Because I sure don't; it's not in the text. There may be a specific line for those who are in Judaea to flee to the mountains, but again, that's the whole country of Judaea, not a single city.

3. Finally, let's talk about the end of the world, since the reason you're clinging to an absurdity that "the revolt in Jerusalem was worse than the destruction of the planet in the day of Noah" ...

Matthew 13:39-42 KJV
(39) The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
(40) As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
(41) The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
(42) And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

In the end of the world, the field of the world is only Jerusalem, the righteous and wicked are judged and the wicked are burned up: the wicked are no more. In your scenario, the Roman soldiers must be the angels, the Jews are the tares, and the rest of Rome and its citizens are the wheat? Thus afterwards Rome continued onward to "shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father?"

All of that breaks apart. The destruction of one single city (no matter how large) is not greater tribulation than Noah's flood, it is not greater in grief than the World Wars which spanned more years and claimed more lives, and even your addition of "within a single city" was not a qualifier used by Christ but rather invented to prop up the failing claim.

Facts:

1. The world did not end in 70 A.D.
2. Jesus did not return with his holy angels and judge between the righteous and the wicked in 70 A.D.
3. The dead were not raised to meet him in the air in 70 A.D.
4. Far greater tribulation has afflicted this world than the death of one single city, and far greater is threatening it even now.

Mark 13:19 KJV
(19) For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.

Here's some more items for perspective:

"The Black Death is estimated to have killed 30–60% of Europe's total population. In total, the plague may have reduced the world population from an estimated 450 million down to 350–375 million in the 14th century."

How does over 100 million deaths sound for tribulation? But I still think that's trumped by the destruction of the whole human race down to 8 people.

You and I don't get along and never will but I feel I should do a public service and tell you something about Tet you may not already know, but might want to.

You could make a watertight case from Scripture contextually handled and completely destroy preterism at its very roots -- it's been done for decades and it's been done here on TOL -- but the preterist's hole card is to claim whatever inconvenient passage you cite against him is spiritual/allegorical/not literally true...meaning it has no weight in the argument because he can't respond to it. He's done this hundreds of times to many users. Preterists are notorious for doing this.

Now, as if that wasn't bad enough, what he'll also do (because he's forced to) is to interpret Scripture in light of extrabiblical writings like Josephus. In fact, you'll notice that Josephus is elevated to the level of Scripture for him in terms of raw weight. Pointing that out gets ignored, he keeps on doing it anyway.

Third, Luke 19:44 refutes the use of Josephus, a key source of preterist prooftexting, but he holds to it anyway due to a (no kidding) pathological hatred of dispensationalism that sinks as low as demonstrable lies and deliberate slander.

Just letting you know what you're getting yourself into, if you don't already know.

 

[john w]

You and I don't get along and never will but I feel I should do a public service and tell you something about Tet you may not already know, but might want to.

You could make a watertight case from Scripture contextually handled and completely destroy preterism at its very roots -- it's been done for decades and it's been done here on TOL -- but the preterist's hole card is to claim whatever inconvenient passage you cite against him is spiritual/allegorical/not literally true...meaning it has no weight in the argument because he can't respond to it. He's done this hundreds of times to many users. Preterists are notorious for doing this.

Now, as if that wasn't bad enough, what he'll also do (because he's forced to) is to interpret Scripture in light of extrabiblical writings like Josephus. In fact, you'll notice that Josephus is elevated to the level of Scripture for him in terms of raw weight. Pointing that out gets ignored, he keeps on doing it anyway.

Third, Luke 19:44 refutes the use of Josephus, a key source of preterist prooftexting, but he holds to it anyway due to a (no kidding) pathological hatred of dispensationalism that sinks as low as demonstrable lies and deliberate slander.

Just letting you know what you're getting yourself into, if you don't already know.

Well said, musty. And these gems stump us all:

Jesus never physically returned, and never will physically return to planet earth after He ascended to Heaven.

vs.

And that is what happened. The Lord came in a way that everyone could see Him. However, He never touched planet earth, and when this event was over, He then sat on the throne in Heaven NOT on planet earth.

"Everyone" that saw Him, according to Barbituartism, was Josephus, and Wikipedia. Wait....According to Barbituartism, he did not return physically, but all of Jerusalem saw him.. And, according to Barbituartism, signs are invisible...



Wait...

Vs.

"Tet is a preterist that believes Christ already returned in 70 AD viathe Roman Army."-Tambora, on another TOL thread

Correct, and thanks for making it clear that it was the Roman army that was His return....The Roman army destroyed Jerusalem in 70AD. That is what Jesus meant when He said He will return.

Shazam, Gomer! Again, Preterism Barbituartism, I find quite amusing, but quite harmless.