ECT A Question For the Preterists

[Right Divider]

70AD

:rotfl:

 

[tetelestai]

Wow the Lord went forth and fought against those nations....and lost

The Lord didn't lose


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[john w]

The Lord didn't lose


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you an antiSemite, little chin/arms Craigie?


Craigie suffers another fatal death knell, as he is in denial, refuses to answer the question, which destroys his "invented" AD 70-ism/Preterism!!!!!!!

Right, little chin/arms Craigie? Yes...

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

The Lord didn't lose


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How did the LORD fight against the nations that came against Jerusalem in 70ad?

 

[john w]

How did the LORD fight against the nations that came against Jerusalem in 70ad?

May I, Craigie?


Fulfilled AD 70....You are in denial...1 verse refutes your theory...Darby....Fulfilled in Christ....Don't you believe the bible/Paul? Fulfilled AD 70....Darby.....MAD suffers another death knell....Bullinger....I was a dispensationalist, for 70 years, until AD 1970....Bullinger...Darby.....Fulfilled in Christ....Figurative.....

 

[Interplanner]

70AD

I don't know why you'd mention 70 AD there; it has little bearing. The picture is of the final victory of God over the nations who harass his people--believers (not Israel). Rev 20 says it is at the last day before the NHNE.

 

[Interplanner]

The Lord didn't lose


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

there is no connection between what happened in AD 70 and Rev 20, the final victory over the last harassment of believers.

 

[Right Divider]

there is no connection between what happened in AD 70 and Rev 20, the final victory over the last harassment of believers.

You say the funniest things.

 

[Interplanner]

You say the funniest things.

All right, persecution then, since every single word has to be familiar to you or else you are lost. Anyway, that is the last thing that happens before the destruction of Satan and the replacement of this earth with the NHNE.

 

[Interplanner]

Actually it is that they are surrounded.

 

[Right Divider]

All right, persecution then, since every single word has to be familiar to you or else you are lost. Anyway, that is the last thing that happens before the destruction of Satan and the replacement of this earth with the NHNE.

So now you're vocabulary snob too?

And it is your silly opinion that the new heaven and the new earth will be completely unrecognizable?

All of God's promises will be fulfilled, including all of His promises to His people Israel.

The church which is His body is NOT Israel.

The sooner that you believe all of the scripture, the better.

 

[Interplanner]

So now you're vocabulary snob too?

And it is your silly opinion that the new heaven and the new earth will be completely unrecognizable?

All of God's promise will be fulfilled, including all of His promises to His people Israel.

The church which is His body is NOT Israel.

The sooner that you believe all of the scripture, the better.

lol, so better is 'in agreement with me'. Got it!

I have no idea what the remark is about NHNE being recognizable. In a sense, they may not be what we think at all: God is the light, there is no sun, and the Lamb is the temple. That's different all right. instead of being the expert on it now, as you are, with 2-3 followers, I'll just let God take care of it. Deal?

You can conflict with Acts 13:32-39 all you want. There are people in adultery who conflict with Rom 7 and I cor 7 all the time; I'm not phased. But it does not change the text or the meaning of Acts in general. No dice.

 

[Right Divider]

lol, so better is 'in agreement with me'. Got it!

You are not too bright.

I have no idea what the remark is about NHNE being recognizable. In a sense, they may not be what we think at all: God is the light, there is no sun, and the Lamb is the temple. That's different all right. instead of being the expert on it now, as you are, with 2-3 followers, I'll just let God take care of it. Deal?

You have made the claim that Israel cannot receive their land promise because there will be a NHNE. That is wrong, like most everything you say.

You can conflict with Acts 13:32-39 all you want. There are people in adultery who conflict with Rom 7 and I cor 7 all the time; I'm not phased. But it does not change the text or the meaning of Acts in general. No dice.

I don't have "a conflict" with Acts 13 at all. You are the one that thinks that EVERY promise that God made to Israel must be REPEATED somewhere in what you call "the NT" or it's automatically cancelled. That is fallacious reasoning.

 

[Interplanner]

You are not too bright.


You have made the claim that Israel cannot receive their land promise because there will be a NHNE. That is wrong, like most everything you say.


I don't have "a conflict" with Acts 13 at all. You are the one that thinks that EVERY promise that God made to Israel must be REPEATED somewhere in what you call "the NT" or it's automatically cancelled. That is fallacious reasoning.

re Israel receiving land
there is no outstanding promise about that that needs to be kept. There is no reference to it in Rom 11 and 11 concludes with equal mercy to all people in Christ, who believe, and saying that God does not owe anyone anything. ch 15 adds that Christ served israel by being the fulfillment of the evangelical promises (they always were).

As for the connection to the NHNE, it is not 'fulfilled' there; it is never mentioned. But the reason it is not mentioned is not just because the NHNE comes. There simply is nothing outstanding that God needs to do for the nation.

Acts 13
If you don't have a problem with Acts 13, where then in the NT is there a more complete recap of its history and its climax? And there is no mention of your promised land (again) here.

All I notice about your system is that the passages that SHOULD SAY something close to what you think are non-existent. It is never there. Because the passages are going/moving in quite another direction that you can't see. Rom 11? No. heb 8-10? No. Acts 13 or 26? No.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

re Israel receiving land
there is no outstanding promise about that that needs to be kept. There is no reference to it in Rom 11 and 11 concludes with equal mercy to all people in Christ, who believe, and saying that God does not owe anyone anything. ch 15 adds that Christ served israel by being the fulfillment of the evangelical promises (they always were).

As for the connection to the NHNE, it is not 'fulfilled' there; it is never mentioned. But the reason it is not mentioned is not just because the NHNE comes. There simply is nothing outstanding that God needs to do for the nation.

Acts 13
If you don't have a problem with Acts 13, where then in the NT is there a more complete recap of its history and its climax? And there is no mention of your promised land (again) here.

All I notice about your system is that the passages that SHOULD SAY something close to what you think are non-existent. It is never there. Because the passages are going/moving in quite another direction that you can't see. Rom 11? No. heb 8-10? No. Acts 13 or 26? No.

:chuckle:

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

re Israel receiving land
there is no outstanding promise about that that needs to be kept. There is no reference to it in Rom 11 and 11 concludes with equal mercy to all people in Christ, who believe, and saying that God does not owe anyone anything. ch 15 adds that Christ served israel by being the fulfillment of the evangelical promises (they always were).

As for the connection to the NHNE, it is not 'fulfilled' there; it is never mentioned. But the reason it is not mentioned is not just because the NHNE comes. There simply is nothing outstanding that God needs to do for the nation.

Acts 13
If you don't have a problem with Acts 13, where then in the NT is there a more complete recap of its history and its climax? And there is no mention of your promised land (again) here.

All I notice about your system is that the passages that SHOULD SAY something close to what you think are non-existent. It is never there. Because the passages are going/moving in quite another direction that you can't see. Rom 11? No. heb 8-10? No. Acts 13 or 26? No.

Translation:

"God's promises? There's no need for it."

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

You can conflict with Acts 13:32-39 all you want. There are people in adultery who conflict with Rom 7 and I cor 7 all the time; I'm not phased. But it does not change the text or the meaning of Acts in general. No dice.

Singular promise in Acts 13. You cannot change it.

 

[turbosixx]

When was this prophecy fulfilled?:

"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.14:2-4).​

So you do not see Christ as king and conqueror?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I'll just let God take care of it. Deal?

You should have the same attitude concerning land promises instead of explaining them away.

 

[Right Divider]

re Israel receiving land
there is no outstanding promise about that that needs to be kept.

Liar.

There is no reference to it in Rom 11 and 11 concludes with equal mercy to all people in Christ, who believe, and saying that God does not owe anyone anything. ch 15 adds that Christ served israel by being the fulfillment of the evangelical promises (they always were).

You skip many promises and confuse mercy with everything else.

As for the connection to the NHNE, it is not 'fulfilled' there; it is never mentioned. But the reason it is not mentioned is not just because the NHNE comes. There simply is nothing outstanding that God needs to do for the nation.

Liar.

Acts 13
If you don't have a problem with Acts 13, where then in the NT is there a more complete recap of its history and its climax? And there is no mention of your promised land (again) here.

No mention DOES NOT EQUAL CANCELLATION. How many times will you repeat that stupidity?

All I notice about your system is that the passages that SHOULD SAY something close to what you think are non-existent. It is never there. Because the passages are going/moving in quite another direction that you can't see. Rom 11? No. heb 8-10? No. Acts 13 or 26? No.

SHOULD is your feeble and idiotic opinion.