Does Luke 19:44 disprove Preterism?

[musterion]

So what? And it wasn't on purpose.

They still say the same thing.

The only thing you are interested in is trying to get me in a "gotcha"

You twist everything I say hoping I'll contradict myself somewhere.

Why don't you try actually discussing the topic of the thread you started instead of trying to make the topic all about me?

I've spent an hour trying you to answer a simple question which you refused at first: Is the doctrinal system of preterism infallible? Do you follow infallible men?

You've now answered "yes" to both because you believe preterism is perfect.

 

[tetelestai]

Another snapshot of Spanky in action.

This is what you Darby Followers always resort to.

You guys can't show Darby's rapture and other nonsense that Darby invented written anywhere before Darby invented it.

You also can't explain Luke 21, Matt 24, or Mark 13

You also can't trace Preterism to one single man like Dispensationalism can be traced to Darby.

So, you guys are left with no other alternative, then to try and make the thread all about me.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

As a Dispensationilist, I have a right to use any verse of Scripture Tet. In order
to make a Spiritual point.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

This is what you Darby Followers always resort to.

You guys can't show Darby's rapture and other nonsense that Darby invented written anywhere before Darby invented it.

You also can't explain Luke 21, Matt 24, or Mark 13

You also can't trace Preterism to one single man like Dispensationalism can be traced to Darby.

So, you guys are left with no other alternative, then to try and make the thread all about me.

Luis De Alcazar has truly made a major impression on you. He was
a Catholic Priest. Are you a Catholic at heart Tet?

 

[musterion]

This is what you Darby Followers always resort to.

You guys can't show Darby's rapture and other nonsense that Darby invented written anywhere before Darby invented it.

You also can't explain Luke 21, Matt 24, or Mark 13

You also can't trace Preterism to one single man like Dispensationalism can be traced to Darby.

So, you guys are left with no other alternative, then to try and make the thread all about me.

This isn't about Darby anymore. Never really was. You've mined that for all it was worth (nothing).

This is now on a whole other and way creepier level: you believe preterism is perfect and infallible, therefore preterists are infallible. You believe that YOU, as a preterist, are infallible.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

This is what you Darby Followers always resort to.

You guys can't show Darby's rapture and other nonsense that Darby invented written anywhere before Darby invented it.

You also can't explain Luke 21, Matt 24, or Mark 13

You also can't trace Preterism to one single man like Dispensationalism can be traced to Darby.

So, you guys are left with no other alternative, then to try and make the thread all about me.

Let's see you back your statement up Tet? Google Luis De Alcazar and see what the dude is known for?

 

[tetelestai]

You've now answered "yes" because you believe preterism is perfect.

Once again mysteryboy, you have twisted everything I said.

I believe Preterism as the accurate interpretation of Matt 24:34 (and other verses).

So far, nobody has been able to give me a better interpretation. In fact, you have flip-flopped three times on the verse just the past few months.

Prove me wrong!!!

Explain Matt 24:34, and show the Preterist interpretation wrong.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Come on Tet, enlighten us?

 

[tetelestai]

This is now on a whole other and way creepier level: you believe preterism is perfect and infallible, therefore preterists are infallible. You believe that YOU, as a preterist, are infallible.

You've lost your mind.

Preterism is not infallible, and I'm certainly not infallible.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Once again mysteryboy, you have twisted everything I said.

I believe Preterism as the accurate interpretation of Matt 24:34 (and other verses).

So far, nobody has been able to give me a better interpretation. In fact, you have flip-flopped three times on the verse just the past few months.

Prove me wrong!!!

Explain Matt 24:34, and show the Preterist interpretation wrong.

Tets been caught up in a web of truth. He doesn't know which way
to turn? So, he's on the attack.

 

[musterion]

Once again mysteryboy, you have twisted everything I said.

I believe Preterism as the accurate interpretation of Matt 24:34 (and other verses).

So far, nobody has been able to give me a better interpretation. In fact, you have flip-flopped three times on the verse just the past few months.

Prove me wrong!!!

Explain Matt 24:34, and show the Preterist interpretation wrong.

You said disp'ism does not align with infallible Scripture and is therefore man-made.

You said, in contrast, preterism aligns perfectly with infallible Scripture.

If it aligns perfectly, then by your measure that proves it cannot be man-made.

Therefore preterism must be infallible as Scripture itself and all who teach preterism are, logically, also infallible.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

You've lost your mind.

Preterism is not infallible, and I'm certainly not infallible.

Is Luis De Alcazar (The Priest that you follow) infallible?

 

[tetelestai]

Tets been caught up in a web of truth. He doesn't know which way
to turn? So, he's on the attack.

Watching how desperate the two of you are acting is embarrassing.

 

[musterion]

We're not desperate. We're just glad we were here to see you nail yourself to the wall on just how cultic you really are.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

This isn't about Darby anymore. Never really was. You've mined that for all it was worth (nothing).

This is now on a whole other and way creepier level: you believe preterism is perfect and infallible, therefore preterists are infallible. You believe that YOU, as a preterist, are infallible.

That means, the Catholic priest Luis De Alcazar was infallible as well?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Watching how desperate the two of you are acting is embarrassing.

If ya can't take the heat, get outta Dodge. And, take Luis De Alcazar with ya.

 

[kmoney]

I'm partial.

I believe the thousand years hasn't ended yet, and right before it does, Satan will be loosed for a little while.

Moreover, I believe the second resurrection and the Great White Throne Judgment are all yet future events.

Thanks. Partial makes makes more sense to me than full.

So in your timeline, we're in the 1000 years that's mentioned in Revelation. Eventually Satan will be loosed. Then once that's done it goes straight into the 2nd Resurrection and final judgment?

What will the 2nd resurrection look like?

Do you think the 'rapture' passages in 1 Thess already happened?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

We're not desperate. We're just glad we were here to see you nail yourself to the wall on just how cultic you really are.

We have Tet and Luis De Alcazar in a corner.

 

[musterion]

That means, the Catholic priest Luis De Alcazar was infallible as well?

Yep, at least if he taught whatever perfect and infallible strain of preterism Spanky agrees with. If he did, then he's infallible because the strain is infallible.

 

[musterion]

And now Satan sends backup to take the heat off Spanky.