genuineoriginal
New member
He is making the claim that the Decapolis was really Judaea to support a false idea that the Christians that fled to Pella in the Decapolis remained in Judaea.
The Preterists and Matthew 24:34
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
He is making the claim that the Decapolis was really Judaea to support a false idea that the Christians that fled to Pella in the Decapolis remained in Judaea.
Vs.
Corky the Clown Tet. has spoken:
"Jesus never physically returned, and never will physically return to planet earth after He ascended to Heaven"-Preterist deceiver Tet.
Vs.
“And that is what happened. The Lord came in a way that everyone could see Him. However, He never touched planet earth, and when this event was over, He then sat on the throne in Heaven NOT on planet earth.”-Tet.
Ascended up physically, never returned physically in AD 70, just as some disembodied spirit, but everyone saw Him, even though he did not return physically in AD 70, and signs are invisible.
Wait:
"Tet is a preterist that believes Christ already returned in 70 AD via the Roman Army."-Tambora, on another TOL thread
"Correct, and thanks for making it clear that it was the Roman army that was His return."-stupid Craigie
"The Roman army destroyed Jerusalem in 70AD. That is what Jesus meant when He said He will return."-Gomer Tet.
musterion
Well-known member
When did Tet ever have any?
Interplanner
Well-known member
genuineO,
given the auspicious nature of the 2nd destruction happening on the same day as the 1st, what would be the point of a 3rd time around?
If Lk 21 and 1 Thess 2 (and others) say that the full wrath of God fell on Israel, in that event, why more?
In Dan 9, Daniel did not cover for Israel. He learned that Messiah would. That's what the 6 expressions and the 'cut off but not for himself' are about.
In a sense, the destruction of Israel happened for 'natural' (inevitable) reasons related to the mission of God. If you follow Paul's appeal to Israel in Acts to be missionaries of his message (and why this would be detailed in Acts which was written to clear Paul of being accused of activity like Judaism's zealots in Judea), then it is clear that there was a fork in the road in 1st century Judea: you either rebel against Rome under the banner of a messianic kingdom and lose Israel, or you join the Christian mission and Israel (the land) survives intact.
Josephus says his training as a priest had informed him a reckless rebellion was coming in his time; the 'rebellion that desolates' of Dan 8:13 (which later verses show having a certain awful leader). And Caiaphas also tried to 'save' Israel (its status under Rome) but getting rid of rebels, which he thought Christ was.
given the auspicious nature of the 2nd destruction happening on the same day as the 1st, what would be the point of a 3rd time around?
If Lk 21 and 1 Thess 2 (and others) say that the full wrath of God fell on Israel, in that event, why more?
In Dan 9, Daniel did not cover for Israel. He learned that Messiah would. That's what the 6 expressions and the 'cut off but not for himself' are about.
In a sense, the destruction of Israel happened for 'natural' (inevitable) reasons related to the mission of God. If you follow Paul's appeal to Israel in Acts to be missionaries of his message (and why this would be detailed in Acts which was written to clear Paul of being accused of activity like Judaism's zealots in Judea), then it is clear that there was a fork in the road in 1st century Judea: you either rebel against Rome under the banner of a messianic kingdom and lose Israel, or you join the Christian mission and Israel (the land) survives intact.
Josephus says his training as a priest had informed him a reckless rebellion was coming in his time; the 'rebellion that desolates' of Dan 8:13 (which later verses show having a certain awful leader). And Caiaphas also tried to 'save' Israel (its status under Rome) but getting rid of rebels, which he thought Christ was.
It is ever obvious where you and yours are concerned that some of you are very well read in your countless books supposedly "based on the Bible."
genuineoriginal
New member
The second destruction of the Temple is the third period of captivity.
The first period was the seventy years prophesied in Jeremiah and included exile and desolation along with the captivity.
The second time was the seven times seventy years prophesied in Daniel and only had the captivity, the children of Israel were allowed to return to the land and rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple, but remained in captivity.
The third time was the great tribulation prophesied in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and began with the desolation of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple.
This third period of captivity was the greatest period.
What was the point of the third period?
To bring the children of Israel to repentance, since they refused to repent the first two times.
Paul's ministry was during the time between the second period of captivity and the third period of captivity.
The second period (seventy "weeks" prophecy) ended after Stephen was stoned. This was the final act of unrepentance during the second period of captivity, and the mission of the disciples was no longer focused on trying to get the children of Israel to repent, instead the mission of the disciples was changed to building a people that were not a people from both Jews and Gentiles (see Deuteronomy 32:21 and the writings of Paul).
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
The full wrath of God will not fall on Israel during the great tribulation because the Lord Jesus will save the elect of God:
"I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city. Then the Lord will go out and fight against those nations, as he fights on a day of battle. On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem" (Zech.14:2-4).
That explains what the Lord Jesus said here:
"For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened" (Mt.24:21-22).
whitestone
Well-known member
no, I'm saying that he took a handful of pieces of the puzzle and put them in their (exact order) I.E. Matthew 24,Luke 21,,,but although understanding that what he was saying was (correct and true) when he got to the last few pieces he had in his hand, (although he knew that was tip-e-toeing into a foggy grey area) instead of acknowledging this he instead (forced) the last few pieces into puzzle.
That is if you examine the puzzle pieces in your own hand i.e. " the 7 times,then 70,then the final blow=captivity and no more country"(which is also correct,I should add) and re- apply it back to Matt.24,mark,and Luke and examine the (s'es) war(S) and rumour(S ) of war(s)....earthquake(S) in diver(S) place(S) ect. then since none of these are singular tense but instead (PLURAL) he is only grasping one of their fulfillment's and not the other.
So in doing so, forcing them together instead of simply presenting the portion of the puzzle he did know he muddied the waters for those who would have explained the rest. And in doing so he not only blinded(slew) some of the others who would have seen,he put the same blindfold on his own eyes. That is if God has dealt the final blow to rebellious Israel by removing its kingdom and sending them into captivity,they were wounded unto death,and cast into the bottomless pit at that time(Revaluations 17:8 KJV),,,but it has risen from that pit now to fulfill the second plural Portion of the same (sets of s"es),,,but those who were about to see are now blinded and will worship the Image thanks to Tet taking 90% of the truth and forcing 10% of lies into it,,,
Here is sodomite Craigie's living quarters now:
Want to have a water gun fight trading insults, please take it to the back alley.:argue:
And John, calling Tet a Sodomite is a little over the top. You are better than that.
How about you "calling to the carpet" Tet., publicly, for his false accusations, against other TOL members, for doctrines that we have not espoused(soul sleep...................), for which when asked to provide the evidence/quotes, he slithers away, and for this:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110728&page=66
Post #987
"Apparently you never saw Johnny W's living quarters:"-Craigie Tet.
Is that not "a little over the top?" Is/are he/you "better than that?"
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Dinner at Morelli's tonight, on you brother? :chew:
On me, fellow Esquiree. I'm a little light on cash, however; can you spot a 5, and 25 cents, for the tip?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
I can handle $5.25. I heard Morelli's has installed a few tvs, so we can watch the Cardinals and Cubs.
The Great Tribulation began in 66AD and ended in 70AD. It lasted 3.5 years.
70AD marked the end of the old covenant, the end of the Mosaic Law, etc.
You're way off base claiming a third captivity lasts thousands of years.
70AD marked the end of the ages. John was told not to seal the scroll because the time was near.
Good one. You lie more than you cry.
musterion
Well-known member
A few of Tet's lies, just off the top of my head:
•He linked J.N. Darby personally with satanist Alesteir Crowley (his way of subtly calling all disp's satanists). I researched it and demonstrated that no personal ties are documented to have existed, not even from Crowley's autobiography.
•He has more than once accused us of believing in soul sleep. No one here, afaik, has said either way that they believe it. Even if some did, it shouldn't make any difference to anything in this discussion; it's just Tet's way of slandering us as "Bullingerites" (even though it's debatable Bullinger himself believed in it).
•The other day he said what I linked in my signature. When I proved he is wrong, he simply ignored it and continued to say I had no case.
John has a file on Tet with much more than this. Tet is a liar but beneath and behind that, he's fundamentally dishonest - possibly the most dishonest poster on TOL, for my money. Even B57, as wrong as he always is, is more honest.
•He linked J.N. Darby personally with satanist Alesteir Crowley (his way of subtly calling all disp's satanists). I researched it and demonstrated that no personal ties are documented to have existed, not even from Crowley's autobiography.
•He has more than once accused us of believing in soul sleep. No one here, afaik, has said either way that they believe it. Even if some did, it shouldn't make any difference to anything in this discussion; it's just Tet's way of slandering us as "Bullingerites" (even though it's debatable Bullinger himself believed in it).
•The other day he said what I linked in my signature. When I proved he is wrong, he simply ignored it and continued to say I had no case.
John has a file on Tet with much more than this. Tet is a liar but beneath and behind that, he's fundamentally dishonest - possibly the most dishonest poster on TOL, for my money. Even B57, as wrong as he always is, is more honest.
Aleister Crowley grew up in the Plymouth Brethren.
Crowley's father was a preacher, and contemporary of John Nelson Darby.
Crowley's aeons were based on Darby's dispensations.
STP has made it clear that he believes in soul sleep.
Bullinger is considered the grandaddy of hyperdispensationalism.
Nope
Mark 13:30 doesn't have the Greek participle "an" in it, which you claimed is a secret condition
John W says I am unemployed, a Sodomite, filed chp 13, divorced, and on my 3rd wife.
Every one of those things is a lie. Yet, you believe what he says about me.
The bottom line is, you can't defend the false teachings of Darby, and because you can't, you have no other alternative than to try and attack me personally.
You're a typical Darby follower.