ECT Acronyms for those debating MAD

[whitestone]

I don't expect everything in the Rev to settle out (I've calculated personnel and materiel in %s and stopped when it got to -275% in ch 9, as I recall...). It is written to pastorally care for those who have lost friends, families in the trauma.

One option, however, in this case, is that the 'beast' in mind is the zealot leader in his rebellion against Rome, making everyone use his money. There are a number of labels used by the NT for this guy: the abomination that desolates, the son of perdition, the wicked one, etc. I dont' know why the beast would be beyond the pale.

Ie, it is not the "Jews in the siege" and their not using the Roman money. It is the Christians during the siege and their not using the wicked one's money. That is, the ones who did not get out.

The title for Mt24A is often 'the Little Apocalypse.' That's fine. But if a person switches tracks between Christians and Jews, it can get murky. I don't see how Mt24A (like Mt10) can be about the Jews in general. That would be a 2P2P mistake, and popping its head in at the wrong time too.

So in post #55 you thanked me for making the point and the way you worded things it seems as though you thought that "Rome" was the beast,,,but now an "zealot leader"...which of the two do you think is the beast I'm unsure which one you think it is?

 

[Interplanner]

So in post #55 you thanked me for making the point and the way you worded things it seems as though you thought that "Rome" was the beast,,,but now an "zealot leader"...which of the two do you think is the beast I'm unsure which one you think it is?

Sorry but I don't base any doctrines on the Rev that are not 100% clear from ordinary passages elsewhere. Apocalyptic literature was not written for that purpose.

From Mt 24A and 2 Thess 2, there is a really awful person showing in the temple in that generation and it's all history from there. He is dictatorial 'for YHWH.' In Dan 8 he is the leader of the 'rebellion that desolates' Israel.

I'd say if you were writing about twin horrors of Roman persecution (which also devours the harlot) and the evil of the harlot itself, at the same time, words would fail.

 

[musterion]

Wrong again mysteryboy

(Luke 19:44) They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.”

Apparently you don't understand what the word "you" means.

Christ Jesus said "they will dash YOU to the ground, YOU and the children within your walls.

That's exactly what happened in 70AD.

Then Christ Jesus says: "Because YOU did not recognize the time of God's coming to YOU".

Christ Jesus wasn't speaking of a future people. He was specifically speaking to His Jewish contemporaries who rejected Him in 30AD.

You need to let go of the false teachings of men you follow, and start believing what the Bible says.

Christ said not one stone would be left upon another in all the city, of which He was speaking (Luke 19:41-42).

Yet many stones were left upon other stones after 70. We know this from Josephus.

You lose.

 

[Interplanner]

Christ said not one stone would be left upon another in all the city, of which He was speaking (Luke 19:41-42).

Yet many stones were left upon other stones after 70. We know this from Josephus.

You lose.

He also said the cattle on a thousand hills was his and there are more hills. You lose.

but actually , you lose because of the demonstrations of the finality of wrath on Israel as in today's thread on that.

 

[musterion]

He also said the cattle on a thousand hills was his and there are more hills. You lose.

but actually , you lose because of the demonstrations of the finality of wrath on Israel as in today's thread on that.

Preterism requires 70 to be the final, ultimate, all-fulfilling prophesied destruction of Jerusalem, right? Right.

That means it has to fit all pertinent predictions on every single point.

EVERY. SINGLE. POINT.

70 doesn't. It simply doesn't.

It's that simple. Keep on lying to yourself and calling Christ a liar while you do it (you already did). It won't change a thing.

 

[tetelestai]

You lose.

Are you talking to me or someone 2,000+ years in the future?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[musterion]

but actually , you lose because of the demonstrations of the finality of wrath on Israel as in today's thread on that.

This point was raised back when Tet was still (in his mind) preterist Batman and you were still Robin, but Tet never did satisfactorily deal with it.

Now that you've stepped up in his absence, please explain how Christ Himself could lash out in wrath against any people during a (relative to the time) newly disclosed dispensation of grace, which is still in force even today and under which the entire world abides.

Put another way, how can God single out just one group for a special outpouring of His uttermost wrath and destruction when all had already been equally counted in sin and unbelief? Not even Rome itself was similarly wiped out BY CHRIST HIMSELF, as you claim happened to the Jews. And even there, only those Jews who happened to be in Jerusalem were subjected to Christ's very personal wrath, according to you.

Have you ever seriously thought through what preterism implies about Christ, in light of what Paul tells us of the house order under which we now live? No, you haven't.

You know who else hasn't? You know who you are identical to on this point?

Mormons.

They also say CHRIST HIMSELF personally wiped out an entire people group (here in N. America) during this dispensation of grace. It's blasphemous, and you're saying exactly the same thing.

What you insist happened inescapably makes His grace a lie, insofar as the Jews of 70 AD were concerned. Explain that.

 

[Interplanner]

This point was raised back when Tet was still (in his mind) preterist Batman and you were still Robin, but Tet never did satisfactorily deal with it.

Now that you've stepped up in his absence, please explain how Christ Himself could lash out in wrath against any people during a (relative to the time) newly disclosed dispensation of grace, which is still in force even today and under which the entire world abides.

Put another way, how can God single out just one group for a special outpouring of His uttermost wrath and destruction when all had already been equally counted in sin and unbelief? Not even Rome itself was similarly wiped out BY CHRIST HIMSELF, as you claim happened to the Jews. And even there, only those Jews who happened to be in Jerusalem were subjected to Christ's very personal wrath, according to you.

Have you ever seriously thought through what preterism implies about Christ, in light of what Paul tells us of the house order under which we now live? No, you haven't.

You know who else hasn't? You know who you are identical to on this point?

Mormons.

They also say CHRIST HIMSELF wiped out an entire people group (here in N. America) during this dispensation of grace. It's blasphemous, and you're saying exactly the same thing.

What you insist happened inescapably makes His grace a lie, insofar as the Jews of 70 AD were concerned. Explain that.

Easily. It was offered to them not just to get it but to be in the mission work of it. To be the meek of the land of Israel not the power-obsessed. That theme is all through the Gospels (training 70) and through Acts and in Rom 10-11 and Hebrews.

Bear in mind, it was the overlapping end of the old and the start of the new. The old had declared this destruction through Moses (Acts 3's sermon), confirmed through Daniel. It's very sad that Israel 'always heaps up their sins' 2 Thess 2. But that is what it is.

By being missionaries for the Gospel, the fate of the land would not matter. It might have been saved, but that's doubtful. Anyway, off go the believers to many other lands with the mission.

That part of the end of the age is quite right as Tet puts it. The end of the old covenant age.

So I'm not the 'preterist' you have projected on to me, and maybe he is not either. This thread is really about the dead ends that D'ism, 2P2P and now MAD have inevitably come to by crosscutting NT history until it is chopped into oblivion.

 

[musterion]

Easily. It was offered to them not just to get it but to be in the mission work of it.

Stop right there. You're proving exactly what I said to Lighthouse.

You're referring to something that was not remotely news to any Jew of the time. That was their prophesied purpose according to God going all the way back to Moses (Exo 19:6), and is not what I asked you about.

I'm talking about the previously undisclosed, unprophesied dispensation of grace that was given to Paul to communicate to the world.

You've not dealt with the question I asked because you don't even know what I'm asking you to explain, so you can't see how it's critically relevant to this whole discussion. Neither did Tet. That's one reason I don't believe either one of you were ever actual dispensationalists.

 

[whitestone]

Sorry but I don't base any doctrines on the Rev that are not 100% clear from ordinary passages elsewhere. Apocalyptic literature was not written for that purpose.

From Mt 24A and 2 Thess 2, there is a really awful person showing in the temple in that generation and it's all history from there. He is dictatorial 'for YHWH.' In Dan 8 he is the leader of the 'rebellion that desolates' Israel.

I'd say if you were writing about twin horrors of Roman persecution (which also devours the harlot) and the evil of the harlot itself, at the same time, words would fail.

And see I.P. thats puzzling that you say that.

Why I say that is that you believe and defend some sort of preterit position. Now which ever camp of your belief it is they all say that these prophecies were fulfilled by ad70.

The puzzling thing though is when we get to the nuts and bolts of asking who what when ect. about the fulfillment's of theses things your not going to base any doctrine on it.

Don't you realize that means it just a hypothesis and that we should approach it that way?

Not meaning that rude,but if you think about it if your not sure if the beast is Rome or an zealot ect. why should anyone think your correct in saying those things were fulfilled prior to ad70?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

He also said the cattle on a thousand hills was his and there are more hills. You lose.

but actually , you lose because of the demonstrations of the finality of wrath on Israel as in today's thread on that.

While livestock may be fruitful, when we consider the spiritual ramifications of 2 peter 3 we must know that going forth the wrathful demonstrations of the past do not conclude all wrathful possiblities. Eph 6Y and Rev 13D must be analyzed before we can say with certainty that the first century prologue of wrath is forensic evidence of the finality of wrath. Agreed?

 

[Interplanner]

nope

 

[musterion]

While livestock may be fruitful, when we consider the spiritual ramifications of 2 peter 3 we must know that going forth the wrathful demonstrations of the past do not conclude all wrathful possiblities. Eph 6Y and Rev 13D must be analyzed before we can say with certainty that the first century prologue of wrath is forensic evidence of the finality of wrath. Agreed?

Rebber!

 

[Interplanner]

Rebber!

It is. It's a revolution against sense. Which is a very modern--post-modern direction.

 

[Danoh]

This point was raised back when Tet was still (in his mind) preterist Batman and you were still Robin, but Tet never did satisfactorily deal with it.

Now that you've stepped up in his absence, please explain how Christ Himself could lash out in wrath against any people during a (relative to the time) newly disclosed dispensation of grace, which is still in force even today and under which the entire world abides.

Put another way, how can God single out just one group for a special outpouring of His uttermost wrath and destruction when all had already been equally counted in sin and unbelief? Not even Rome itself was similarly wiped out BY CHRIST HIMSELF, as you claim happened to the Jews. And even there, only those Jews who happened to be in Jerusalem were subjected to Christ's very personal wrath, according to you.

Have you ever seriously thought through what preterism implies about Christ, in light of what Paul tells us of the house order under which we now live? No, you haven't.

You know who else hasn't? You know who you are identical to on this point?

Mormons.

They also say CHRIST HIMSELF personally wiped out an entire people group (here in N. America) during this dispensation of grace. It's blasphemous, and you're saying exactly the same thing.

What you insist happened inescapably makes His grace a lie, insofar as the Jews of 70 AD were concerned. Explain that.

Excellent point.

I pointed this exact thing out to both of them months ago...to no avail.

It is what it is.

Those two are set in their erroneous view; to no avail.

They have no interest in any view but their own.

Too many are like that.

Too often; even some Mads.

It is the root of error.

 

[Interplanner]

Stop right there. You're proving exactly what I said to Lighthouse.

You're referring to something that was not remotely news to any Jew of the time. That was their prophesied purpose according to God going all the way back to Moses (Exo 19:6), and is not what I asked you about.

I'm talking about the previously undisclosed, unprophesied dispensation of grace that was given to Paul to communicate to the world.

You've not dealt with the question I asked because you don't even know what I'm asking you to explain, so you can't see how it's critically relevant to this whole discussion. Neither did Tet. That's one reason I don't believe either one of you were ever actual dispensationalists.

The age of grace was disclosed; but Judaism thought it was through the Law, not apart from the Law in Christ. That's the mystery. That's why Paul can refer back to Abraham for all the truth of the Gospel that he needs.

Gal 3:17 is critical here. Who did the switching and voiding?

 

[Interplanner]

Excellent point.

I pointed this exact thing out to both of them months ago...to no avail.

It is what it is.

Those two are set in their erroneous view; to no avail.

They have no interest in any view but their own.

Too many are like that.

Too often; even some Mads.

It is the root of error.

No, Danoh, you'll see this is answered. Israel was offered grace. Once rejected, they were treated very harshly. But you know that because of Acts 3: who ever ignores the coming prophet would be disinherited.

The point is amateur besides this. The Rev is full of wrath.

Based on what the two of you are agreeing upon, it sounds like grace is universal during a certain time, but then wrath is universal at another time. Not.

 

[Interplanner]

And see I.P. thats puzzling that you say that.

Why I say that is that you believe and defend some sort of preterit position. Now which ever camp of your belief it is they all say that these prophecies were fulfilled by ad70.

The puzzling thing though is when we get to the nuts and bolts of asking who what when ect. about the fulfillment's of theses things your not going to base any doctrine on it.

Don't you realize that means it just a hypothesis and that we should approach it that way?

Not meaning that rude,but if you think about it if your not sure if the beast is Rome or an zealot ect. why should anyone think your correct in saying those things were fulfilled prior to ad70?

What I said was: I don't base anything on the Rev unless it is totally clear in plain language elsewhere.

As for your part: did you clear up why there is a problem if the Jews printed their own money? That proves they 'could not buy or sell without (the beasts)'. It doesn't clear up, though, whether that beast is Roman or zealot.

 

[Crucible]

MAD doesn't need to be an acronym, I think the word fits it perfectly: mad. I wouldn't mind so much if they weren't so irritatingly smug and pretentious toward others.

MADism is too ridiculous to even deserve a rebuttal. It patently rejects historical, orthodox Christian notions and is propped up by blind bias.

John Calvin called it before such things even existed, knowing the ludicrous appeals that would come from dissidents. Particularly among Millennials. Dispensationalism is 19th Century shenanigans in the same era as Mormonism and the like.

 

[steko]

While livestock may be fruitful, when we consider the spiritual ramifications of 2 peter 3 we must know that going forth the wrathful demonstrations of the past do not conclude all wrathful possiblities. Eph 6Y and Rev 13D must be analyzed before we can say with certainty that the first century prologue of wrath is forensic evidence of the finality of wrath. Agreed?

Rev 13 is Pockycliptic literature and is not meant to be understood.
They just put that in there to make the book thicker.