ECT Only a D'ist would poo-poo Holford's victory

[Danoh]

There are things that are parallel: that are the same.

And there are things that are not parallel - that differ: that are not the same.

And there are things that are parallel; but are not identical.

And then there is the criteria for determining which is which.

All error stems from a violation of any of that in one way, or another.

 

[Interplanner]

More vain philosophy from someone that always interprets God's Word based on some sort of outside opinions about it.

Who are the HEBREWS? Why was that book written to THEM?

In the unshakable kingdom, Israel has the lead. The kings of the gentiles come to THEM.

Rev 21:22-26 (AKJV/PCE)​

(21:22) And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. (21:23) And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb [is] the light thereof. (21:24) And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. (21:25) And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. (21:26) And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it. ​

This is JUST as Isaiah also said that it would be.

Isa 60:10-12 (AKJV/PCE)​

(60:10) And the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister unto thee: for in my wrath I smote thee, but in my favour have I had mercy on thee. (60:11) Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that [men] may bring unto thee the forces of the Gentiles, and [that] their kings [may be] brought. (60:12) For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, [those] nations shall be utterly wasted. ​

You remember Isaiah right? That prophet of Israel.

P.S. Again, don't toss out entire chapters.... be SPECIFIC. Quote the verses that you are talking about.

Try the unshakeable kingdom as defined by Hebrews 11-13. The reason you need whole chapters is because you are too narrow and unfamiliar with them. But sometimes I put the verse #s.

 

[Tambora]

P.S. Again, don't toss out entire chapters.... be SPECIFIC. Quote the verses that you are talking about.

He doesn't like to do that because he gets clobbered with specifics.
Vagueness is his M.O.

 

[Interplanner]

He doesn't like to do that because he gets clobbered with specifics.
Vagueness is his M.O.

Well, if you have another suggestion to help you read whole sections of the NT at a time instead of the bit pieces and defaulting to your own understanding of the OT, let me know. I'm trying to help you get to the point where you wake up screaming, 'there's no way 2P2P can be true because right before this verse he said...!!!' That will be the day of sweet victory for the truth.

 

[Tambora]

Well, if you have another suggestion to help you read whole sections of the NT at a time instead of the bit pieces and defaulting to your own understanding of the OT, let me know. I'm trying to help you get to the point where you wake up screaming, 'there's no way 2P2P can be true because right before this verse he said...!!!' That will be the day of sweet victory for the truth.

Genesis - Revelation.

 

[Interplanner]

Genesis - Revelation.

But there are a few key sections that are in the NT that speak to full length and width of the Bible. They do not offer soundbytes. They offer structure.

 

[Tambora]

But there are a few key sections that are in the NT that speak to full length and width of the Bible. They do not offer soundbytes. They offer structure.

Genesis - Revelation is key.

 

[Interplanner]

"Specifics trip you up!"

 

[Right Divider]

Try the unshakeable kingdom as defined by Hebrews 11-13. The reason you need whole chapters is because you are too narrow and unfamiliar with them. But sometimes I put the verse #s.

So now Revelation and Isaiah have been cancelled?

You are just so far out there that you need a space ship.

 

[Danoh]

Well, if you have another suggestion to help you read whole sections of the NT at a time instead of the bit pieces and defaulting to your own understanding of the OT, let me know. I'm trying to help you get to the point where you wake up screaming, 'there's no way 2P2P can be true because right before this verse he said...!!!' That will be the day of sweet victory for the truth.

Read Romans 1 - 3 fifty times; one right after the other.

Just reading; no stopping to think on this or that; no reading one thing or another.

Just reading it over and over...

 

[Danoh]

"Specifics trip you up!"

That's just your arrogance.

For you are anything but specific in your post lay outs.

Obviously a picture of the obvious; the "one size fits all" in Scripture, that your entire school is based on.

I doubt you will ever see a day when you will be able to say you are a former Reformed...reformed :chuckle:

 

[Interplanner]

So now Revelation and Isaiah have been cancelled?

You are just so far out there that you need a space ship.

See: you won't take plain language apostles teaching. You go to the Rev with its slippery symbols, about which there are 1M experts saying the others are wrong, or
you go to Isaiah and ignore the NT because I quoted 10 through Paul in Rom 9, which is devastatingly clear.

 

[Right Divider]

See: you won't take plain language apostles teaching. You go to the Rev with its slippery symbols, about which there are 1M experts saying the others are wrong, or
you go to Isaiah and ignore the NT because I quoted 10 through Paul in Rom 9, which is devastatingly clear.

I take ALL of the scripture EQUALLY seriously. Apparently, you only like some of it.

PLEASE, again I ask, QUOTE those specific verses and your confused understanding of them!

 

[Danoh]

See: you won't take plain language apostles teaching. You go to the Rev with its slippery symbols, about which there are 1M experts saying the others are wrong, or
you go to Isaiah and ignore the NT because I quoted 10 through Paul in Rom 9, which is devastatingly clear.

What a character IP is...

He asserts the Rev was intended to comfort 1st Century Tribulation saints...

And then he asserts the Rev is slippery symbols.

Here ya go, 1st Century saints - slippery symbols to assure you in your great hour of need for clarity.

Confusing?

No problem, 1st Century saints - the Preterists will come along in about 300 years to...

Confuse the heck out of those symbols even further...

What...a...mess...Preterism...is.

 

[musterion]

slippery symbols

You can't unbake a cake. You can take preterism from its Catholic founder, but you can't take the Catholicism out of preterism.

 

[Interplanner]

What a character IP is...

He asserts the Rev was intended to comfort 1st Century Tribulation saints...

And then he asserts the Rev is slippery symbols.

Here ya go, 1st Century saints - slippery symbols to assure you in your great hour of need for clarity.

Confusing?

No problem, 1st Century saints - the Preterists will come along in about 300 years to...

Confuse the heck out of those symbols even further...

What...a...mess...Preterism...is.

The symbols would be slippery to us 2000 years and 8000 miles away. The 'experts' today treat them like they are telephone listings.

It is quite clear that the Right Guy wins in the Rev and the beast loses. That's what matters.

 

[musterion]

PLEASE, again I ask, QUOTE those specific verses and your confused understanding of them!

He has two simple categories of Bible verses.

1) Literal (those he says support preterism, and so must be believed)

2) Figurative allegorical parabolic symbology (everything else, which must be explained away)

If he encounters one that he thought supports preterism but is shown it can't, it slides instantly from Cat 1 to Cat 2.

In actual practice, he ends up with a very small Bible.

 

[Interplanner]

He has two simple categories of Bible verses.

1) Literal (those he says support preterism, which must be believed)

2) Figurative allegorical parabolic symbology (everything else, which must be explained away)

If he encounters one that he thought supports preterism but is shown it can't, it slides instantly from Cat 1 to Cat 2.

#2 is not just allegory. It's anything that is now true in Christ. Christ is our passover lamb, our temple, our manna, our exodus, our conquest (captivity captive). And anyway what's wrong with that?

And I don't think I'm preterist because you haven't defined terms. You're just angry; your security is in a return to the land. While me, I have Christ alone.

 

[musterion]

He doesn't like to do that because he gets clobbered with specifics.
Vagueness is his M.O.

He doesn't have to think too hard that way. He can just quote Jack Hayford.

 

[musterion]

While me, I have Christ alone.

No. You have a "Jesus" who did not mean what is recorded in the Bible, but must be reinterpreted and correctly retranslated by you. Which is not Christ.