ECT Satan and Preterism

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
The context of the amos prophecy provides that. he had been telling how awful the exile was. to start a new section saying 'in that day...' that was positive meant 'after that awful time.'

Of course anyone can change the words found in the Scriptures to make them match what he wants them to say. But that proves nothing.

You evidently do not know what is also said in the same prophecy, something which has not happened yet:

"And I will bring again the captivity of my people ...And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God"
(Amos 9:14,15).​

That is the same promise which the LORD made to David:

"Now therefore so shalt thou say unto my servant David...I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime" (2 Sam.7:8,10).

That promised was no fulfilled at the Cross because later in AD70 the Jews were moved from the land. And the LORD said that He would not alter the promise which He made to David:

"I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant...Nevertheless my loving-kindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David"
(Ps.89:3,33-35).​

Your theology is TOTALLY based on the fiction that the LORD altered His promises which He made to David and therefore lied to him.

But you couldn't care less as long as you can win an argument!
 

Interplanner

New member
Of course anyone can change the words found in the Scriptures to make them match what he wants them to say. But that proves nothing.

You evidently do not know what is also said in the same prophecy, something which has not happened yet:

"And I will bring again the captivity of my people ...And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God"
(Amos 9:14,15).​

That is the same promise which the LORD made to David:

"Now therefore so shalt thou say unto my servant David...I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime" (2 Sam.7:8,10).

That promised was no fulfilled at the Cross because later in AD70 the Jews were moved from the land. And the LORD said that He would not alter the promise which He made to David:

"I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant...Nevertheless my loving-kindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David"
(Ps.89:3,33-35).​

Your theology is TOTALLY based on the fiction that the LORD altered His promises which He made to David and therefore lied to him.

But you couldn't care less as long as you can win an argument!




The only thing I care about is consistency with what happened in Acts 15 because that is where the quote is "used" in the sense of applied to what was going on there. It would really help if you would stop trying to "fit" everything to your land promise, so that you can see that it no longer applies.

The language was not changed; all it means is 'after the exile.' James did not produce the Septuagint!

James applied it correctly to what was going on right then, because the former things like the temple and land are now only to be referred to as symbols for what came as reality in Christ (see the temple in Eph 2B).

Since you do not practice that graduated meaning, there is a veil--the same as in 2 Cor--and you do not see what the NT is saying.
 

Interplanner

New member
Acts 15 should be just as clear as Gal 2 because there is an actual life situation happening in the background. It is not just doctrine, or a doctrinal letter or essay.

That's what makes jerry's futurism of it such a farce.
 

Danoh

New member
Acts 15 should be just as clear as Gal 2 because there is an actual life situation happening in the background. It is not just doctrine, or a doctrinal letter or essay.

That's what makes jerry's futurism of it such a farce.

Yours is a schematic full of holes you have ended up unable to see.

And as you look out at things asserted from the other side's dispensational schematic, you cannot but perceive not only what you perceive are holes, but a conspiracy.

Both sides cannot be right.

The thing to do is to put both schematics aside.

Something both sides appear incapable of.

Thus, the resulting conspiracy theory of each; that the other...is simply up to no good.

The result?

The "foolish consistency" that results in "a conspiracy of fools" ever arguing and getting nowhere with one another.
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
there is a BOOK --the same as in Amazon.com--and you do not see what the NT is saying :D
Dano, you are constantly relying on your books based theories and "books about" a particular thing. When looked at from a different perspective some (like you) can't grasp the true meaning. :chuckle:
 

SaulToPaul

New member
Silver Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Dano, you are constantly relying on your books based theories and "books about" a particular thing. When looked at from a different perspective some (like you) can't grasp the true meaning. :chuckle:

You sound like a Phil Swift infomercial!
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
I think you'd better take a break for a month and come back after you know some basic NT information.

I think that you should go away and stop preparing the way for the wicked one:

"And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders"
(2 Thess.2:8-9).​

When was it that you said that the wicked one came in the past?
 

Interplanner

New member
I think that you should go away and stop preparing the way for the wicked one:

"And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders"
(2 Thess.2:8-9).​

When was it that you said that the wicked one came in the past?





Yes, the figure in Dan 8 came during the rebellion that desolated, the original name for the abomination that had the 490 year timestamp.

the last episode of evil on earth is different according to Rev 20. It is Satan himself, harrassing believers on earth everywhere on earth. There are similarities, but the figure in the destruction of Jerusalem did not end that way exactly. But he did perish, and it was God's hand. Even Josephus could not avoid describing the scene as an unusual act of judgement by God, with the ground heat, the noise, the voice of the Godhead, the sword hanging over the city, etc.

Originally, as we know from Paul, the end of the whole world was expected right after the destruction of Jerusalem. He even talks that way when advising about marriage, I Cor 7:29+.

But God decided to delay, to save even more people, as we know, because here we are 2000 years later.

It is very simple and clear what happened. But mixing 1st century Judean events with the end of the whole world is a leap into chaos.
 

SaulToPaul

New member
Silver Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Yes, the figure in Dan 8 came during the rebellion that desolated, the original name for the abomination that had the 490 year timestamp.

the last episode of evil on earth is different according to Rev 20. It is Satan himself, harrassing believers on earth everywhere on earth. There are similarities, but the figure in the destruction of Jerusalem did not end that way exactly. But he did perish, and it was God's hand. Even Josephus could not avoid describing the scene as an unusual act of judgement by God, with the ground heat, the noise, the voice of the Godhead, the sword hanging over the city, etc.

Originally, as we know from Paul, the end of the whole world was expected right after the destruction of Jerusalem. He even talks that way when advising about marriage, I Cor 7:29+.

But God decided to delay, to save even more people, as we know, because here we are 2000 years later.

It is very simple and clear what happened. But mixing 1st century Judean events with the end of the whole world is a leap into chaos.

:chuckle:
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Rev 21. It's not the actual places, Jerry.

Then why does the prophecy specificy Jerusalem?:

"Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east" (Zech.14:1-4).​

Frankly, I am shocked by your continued denial of what is written so plainly in the Scriptures. Over and over you just flat out deny that what is written in the Scriptures is true.
 

SaulToPaul

New member
Silver Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Then why does the prophecy specificy Jerusalem?:

"Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east" (Zech.14:1-4).​

Frankly, I am shocked by your continued denial of what is written so plainly in the Scriptures. Over and over you just flat out deny that what is written in the Scriptures is true.

IP will not touch this one with a ten foot pole.
 
Top