ECT Why preterism can never be taken seriously by Bible believers

musterion

Well-known member
God showed John the Day of the Lord, in great detail. You'd think He would have shown an apostle the final return of Christ in 70.
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
Nope. "Virgin birth" is perfectly fine. Mary was a virgin when Christ was conceived AND when He was born.

Nope. The Lord Jesus Christ was born, "biologically," as we were.

"Mary was a virgin when Christ was conceived.."-you


Oh. We did not know that. Irrelevant. It was a virgin conception, not birth. The term "virgin birth" implies some unusual, miraculous birth, which is not true(normal birth, like ours) taking away, from the purpose, for which he was born "of a virgin"....another thread.


"Mary was a virgin when.... He was born."-you

Oh. We did not know that. The LORD God could turn rocks......The point-the reason He had to be conceived, supernaturally....He was born, biologically, normally. The term "virgin" in "virgin birth" is used as an adverb, which inaccurately describes the birth, focuses on that, instead of on what the LORD God would have us to focus-"supernatural," miraculous, virgin conception, who was "born of/from" a virgin. There was nothing, NADA, unusual/supernatural, re. the biology of the birth, as He was born as we were, humbling himself, hence, "partaker of the same"-"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same;..."(Hebrews 2:14 KJV)=what we go through, He went through.....
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER

We've been over this, but you don't like my answer.

"The day of the Lord", "in that day", etc. does not refer to one specific 24 hour day.

It refers to many things that happened in 70AD.

Such as:

1) Judgment upon the unbelieving Jews.
2) The resurrection of all believers who had physically died up to that point
3) The end of the old covenant
4) The destruction of the temple, and everything that pertained to the temple.
5) Signs and wonders, and the end of signs and wonders.
6) The binding of Satan
7) Christ Jesus sat down on His throne in the kingdom.
8) The beginning of the new heavens and new earth.
9) The coming of the Lord Jesus and His kingdom.

And many, many other things.


Now, your probably going to ask me to put them in chronological order. However, I don't believe anyone can put them in chronological order. Chronological order isn't important, what's important is to understand that all the events took place just like Jesus said they would, and when He said they would take place.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
God showed John the Day of the Lord, in great detail. You'd think He would have shown an apostle the final return of Christ in 70.

John described the Revelation he saw with symbolic language.

What John saw was fulfilled in 70AD.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Still no reply to this.

I replied.

That's funny coming from you though. You can't give us a verse that describes the destruction of the Second Temple because you know if you do, you defeat yourself, and dig yourself in an even deeper hole that you already dug yourself in.

I bet you won't answer the following question:

Is there any prophecy in the Bible that describes the destruction of the Second Temple?
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
mysteryboy is a classic example of what happens when Darby followers such as himself try to defend Dispensationalism.

mysteryboy has dug himself so far into a hole, he has no way out.

The false teachings of John Nelson Darby cannot stand the test of scripture.

His usual, word for word spam, copynpaste, that he loads up, spams, when he is getting picked apart, and cannot answer any questions.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Tet was a mess for 25-27 years until he had an epiphany.

No epiphany.

It was from watching you Darby followers being unable to defend your Dispensationalism.

If you were honest with yourself, instead of only being worried about "winning", you would see that Dispensationalism cannot stand the test of scripture.

Prove me wrong! Explain Luke 19:41-44, and how it fits into your Dispensational eschatology?
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
:chuckle:

There you go, TOL audience:

"Chronological order isn't important,..."-Tellalie

=out with the details of the book. Next up? When the Lord Jesus Christ was born, and the chronological order of the bible, is just a minor detail.

And this fraud is going to "teach" us MAD/dispie wackos?
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Just part of it, right?

Nope, all of it that pertains to the Day of the Lord.

John describes the Saints reigning with Christ Jesus for a thousand years. John then tells us what takes place when the thousand years are over.

The "thousand years" are not part of the Day of the Lord.
 

musterion

Well-known member
There you go, TOL audience:

"Chronological order isn't important,..."-Tellalie

=out with the details of the book. Next up? When the Lord Jesus Christ was born, and the chronological order of the bible, is just a minor detail.

And this fraud is going to "teach" us MAD/dispie wackos?

He's a mess.
 
Top