ECT Why preterism can never be taken seriously by Bible believers

[Clete]

Congratulations Clete !

You're the first Darby follower to answer the question.

Does that mean you believe all the prophecies of a temple being destroyed are a third temple that hasn't been built yet?

Probably but the question is not relevant. You aren't talking to a person who believes that prophesy is prewritten history.

 

[tetelestai]

Dispensationalism as an "ism" didn't exist before Darby but the doctrines predate the Catholic church. (i.e. the bible teaches most of them explicitly.)

At least your being somewhat honest.

However, I disagree that the core beliefs of Dispensationalism predate 1830.

There is no trace of anyone teaching a secret rapture before Darby invented it in 1830.

Prior to Darby, no one taught of a "secret parenthetical dispensation" inserted into God's dealings with Israel.

There are many more core beliefs of Dispensationalism that didn't exist before 1830 also.

 

[Clete]

You didn't quote it

Here is what you said:





Whose opinion is it then?

You said I wasn't a Christian based on your 5 points, so that tells me you agree with the 5 points.

Then when I ask you to defend point #5 with scripture, you can't do it.



This is the other thing you Darby followers do when you can't defend Darby's false teachings. First you call the person a liar, then you tell them they aren't saved.

You Darby followers are so predictable.

I did quote it! I copied and pasted it off a Google search. Those are the five points of fundamentalism, weirdo! Do you think I came up with the five points of fundamentalism on my own? That I just happen to pick the exact same five points by accident?

Next you'll be telling me that these those five doctrines were invented in the late 1800s because the word "fundamentalist" didn't exist before then! Give me a break!

And I didn't say you were saved. I know very little about you and would need much more information to determine that.

 

[tetelestai]

Probably but the question is not relevant.

I disagree, I think it's very relevant.

A great deal of scripture covers the destruction of the first temple (Solomon's Temple), and a great deal of scripture coverer the destruction of the Second Temple.

However, you disagree with all the scripture that covers the destruction of the Second Temple, by claiming it describes the destruction of a third temple.

For your theory to be true, it would mean the destruction of the first and third temples is given in many passages, but not one verse in the entire Bible describes the Second Temple, the temple Jesus, Peter, John, Paul and so many other NT people visited.

Don't you find that odd?

You aren't talking to a person who believes that prophesy is prewritten history.

(Luke 19:43-44) The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 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.”

The bolded part above is exactly what happened in 70AD. The Romans built an embankment around the city.

Do you think that was just some big coincidence?

 

[john w]

This is a lie.

Dispensationalism as an "ism" didn't exist before Darby but the doctrines predate the Catholic church. (i.e. the bible teaches most of them explicitly.)


You are truly stupid.

Every doctrine that anyone holds on anything, anywhere, in any religion whatsoever was taught it by someone who was themselves taught it by someone before them.

My doctrines were first taught by those who wrote the bible. They come together as what is known in modern terms as dispensationalism but that does not mean nor does it even imply that those doctrines where invented by Darby or by anyone else other than those whose authored the words of Scripture by inspiration of God Himself.

I'll say it once again. It is irrelevant to me who published a modern book that first used the word "dispensationalism" and I have not read, nor am I really interested in reading anything Darby wrote. I'd dare say that I'd disagree with a significant portion of it if I did. My doctrines are established biblically, following rationally from basically one major premise, that being that God is living, personal, relational, loving and righteous. And even that doctrine is gleaned from a literal interpretation of scripture!

Resting in Him,
Clete

He is going to Darby you, Clete....Watch....


He is a habitual liar:


" That's not my argument.

I have never said that dispensationalism was "wrong" because of how old it was. I specifically said that no one taught about Christ coming back twice before Darby did."-Tellalie

He won't touch that quote, that caught him in another one of his habital lies, on TOL, That is his "ministry," on TOL, to quench his obsession-lying, habitually, more than he cries/blinks/wines.

 

[john w]

At least your being somewhat honest.

However, I disagree that the core beliefs of Dispensationalism predate 1830.

There is no trace of anyone teaching a secret rapture before Darby invented it in 1830.

Prior to Darby, no one taught of a "secret parenthetical dispensation" inserted into God's dealings with Israel.

There are many more core beliefs of Dispensationalism that didn't exist before 1830 also.

Made up. You are in denial, with that spam.


" That's not my argument.

I have never said that dispensationalism was "wrong" because of how old it was. I specifically said that no one taught about Christ coming back twice before Darby did."-Tet.

 

[john w]

" That's not my argument.

I have never said that dispensationalism was "wrong" because of how old it was. I specifically said that no one taught about Christ coming back twice before Darby did."-Tet.

"So, they were saved, but not technically until 70AD."-Tellalie

 

[Clete]

At least your being somewhat honest.

However, I disagree that the core beliefs of Dispensationalism predate 1830.

There is no trace of anyone teaching a secret rapture before Darby invented it in 1830.

Prior to Darby, no one taught of a "secret parenthetical dispensation" inserted into God's dealings with Israel.

There are many more core beliefs of Dispensationalism that didn't exist before 1830 also.

Please quote me any book, treatise or sermon that taught that indulgences are a false teaching prior to the year 1600.

You can't do it because no such document exists.

Therefore, the rejection of indulgences is a false teaching of man, blah, blah blah.


Disagree?!

Its precisely the same form of argument you just used against dispensationalism. The EXACT same form of argument!

Once again, I do not believe one word of dispensationalism because of some book I read or because some person taught it to me. I did read books and I was taught it by other human beings but it wasn't because of the book or because of the person that I accepted the teaching. I accepted it because it was biblically established in a rationally coherent manner which follows from a very few basic premises, one of which is a literal interpretation of scripture.

 

[tetelestai]

Its precisely the same form of argument you just used against dispensationalism. The EXACT same form of argument!

No it's not. You're as bad as STP when it comes to analogies.

Use Mormonism, it's a much better analogy.

Not one trace of Mormonism can be found before Joseph Smith invented it in 1830.

BTW, it's just another really big coincidence that Smith and Darby both invented their "teachings" in the year 1830.

 

[john w]

Please quote me any book, treatise or sermon that taught that indulgences are a false teaching prior to the year 1600.

You can't do it because no such document exists.

Therefore, the rejection of indulgences is a false teaching of man, blah, blah blah.


Disagree?!

Its precisely the same form of argument you just used against dispensationalism. The EXACT same form of argument!

Once again, I do not believe one word of dispensationalism because of some book I read or because some person taught it to me. I did read books and I was taught it by other human beings but it wasn't because of the book or because of the person that I accepted the teaching. I accepted it because it was biblically established in a rationally coherent manner which follows from a very few basic premises, one of which is a literal interpretation of scripture.

Hilston challenged the punk on his "no one taught.....before....until..." sophistry, like you did, and the punk fled the debate,eventually, as Tellalie kept bringing up that "argument," in deceit, and was laughed at.

 

[john w]

No it's not. You're as bad as STP when it comes to analogies.

Use Mormonism, it's a much better analogy.

Not one trace of Mormonism can be found before Joseph Smith invented it in 1830.

BTW, it's just another really big coincidence that Smith and Darby both invented their "teachings" in the year 1830.

Relevance, punk, of when.


Not a peep, as Catholics employ the same satanic "argument," against "Protestants,"flat earth" proponent, little arms Craigie. But then again, Craigie is a closet Roman Catholic.

 

[Clete]

I disagree, I think it's very relevant.

A great deal of scripture covers the destruction of the first temple (Solomon's Temple), and a great deal of scripture coverer the destruction of the Second Temple.

However, you disagree with all the scripture that covers the destruction of the Second Temple, by claiming it describes the destruction of a third temple.

For your theory to be true, it would mean the destruction of the first and third temples is given in many passages, but not one verse in the entire Bible describes the Second Temple, the temple Jesus, Peter, John, Paul and so many other NT people visited.

Don't you find that odd?

It's not my theory, its yours that you want to put in my mouth. I do not believe it necessary for there to be a third temple. There almost certainly will be but prophesy IS NOT prewritten history. Israel has been cut off and so the destruction of their temple follows but not in fulfillment of any prophesy. If and/or how the remaining prophesies pertaining to Israel will be fulfilled is entirely up to God and Israel.

(Luke 19:43-44) The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 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.”

The bolded part above is exactly what happened in 70AD. The Romans built an embankment around the city.

Do you think that was just some big coincidence?

And the unbolded part is what did NOT happen in 70AD.

 

[tetelestai]

Back to Luke 19

(Luke 19:43-44) The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 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.”

In verse 42, Jesus wept when He saw the city because He knew what was going to happen to the people of the city, and the city itself.

Jesus said they would be dashed to the ground, and not one stone would be left standing upon another.

Jesus said the reason these things would take place was because "you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you".

This prophecy was fulfilled in 70AD

Yet, Darby followers want us to believe it wasn't fulfilled. Darby followers want us to believe that Jesus didn't weep at the city He saw, but that He wept over a city that allegedly is in the yet future.

Darby followers want us to believe that some people in the Middle East are going to pay the price for the Jews who rejected Him in the first century.

I don't know how Darby followers can read Luke 19, and with a straight face make their claims.

 

[Clete]

No it's not. You're as bad as STP when it comes to analogies.

Yes, it is and it wasn't an analogy, it was an argument that used precisely the same FORM of argument you used - the EXACT same form of argument.

Use Mormonism, it's a much better analogy.

Not one trace of Mormonism can be found before Joseph Smith invented it in 1830.

THAT IS NOT THE REASON MORMONISM IS FALSE YOU STUPID TWIT!!!!

Thank you for proving my point!

BTW, it's just another really big coincidence that Smith and Darby both invented their "teachings" in the year 1830.

Are you seriously suggesting that there is some cosmic meaning, some mystically magic significance to the year 1830? :bang:

 

[tetelestai]

It's not my theory, its yours that you want to put in my mouth. I do not believe it necessary for there to be a third temple. There almost certainly will be but prophesy IS NOT prewritten history.

In Matt 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13....Jesus emphatically says "Verily", or in the modern translations "Truly" all these things will take place.

So, putting your open theism aside, I believe what Christ Jesus said, not you.

Israel has been cut off and so the destruction of their temple follows but not in fulfillment of any prophesy.

See above.

This is why I laugh when you tell me you take the Bible literally. Right now you are taking the Bible as non-literal as possible.

If and/or how the remaining prophesies pertaining to Israel will be fulfilled is entirely up to God and Israel.

First off ,there are no remaining unfulfilled prophecies for Israel. They were all fulfilled in Christ Jesus.

Secondly, Jesus gave explicit details of what would happen.

And the unbolded part is what did NOT happen in 70AD.

Does that mean the bolded part did happen in 70AD?

 

[Clete]

Okay, that's it!

Back to the ignore list with you!

:Clete:

 

[musterion]

THAT IS NOT THE REASON MORMONISM IS FALSE YOU STUPID TWIT!!!!

I suspect he knows that, which is the root problem with every discussion. He's fundamentally and abundantly dishonest.

 

[tetelestai]

Are you seriously suggesting that there is some cosmic meaning, some mystically magic significance to the year 1830? :bang:

No, I'm just pointing out that Dispensationalism was invented during "the age of the cults".

John Nelson Darby (Dispensationalism) was a contemporary of Joseph Smith (Mormonism), Charles Taze Russell (Jehovah's Witnesses), Ellen White (Seventh Day Adventism), and Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Science).

All of the above belief systems were invented in the mid 1800's.

 

[john w]

"First off ,there are no remaining unfulfilled prophecies for Israel. They were all fulfilled in Christ Jesus."-Tellalie and satan

That stumper, crafty/subtil, dismissal, can be used, to "prove" anything.


That's how Catholics talk. You talk like them, and other demons.


You satanic piece of "Replacement Theology" trash.

Ssssssssssssssssssssss..............We smell your sulfur, little arms Craigie....

 

[tetelestai]

Okay, that's it!

Back to the ignore list with you!

:Clete:

I'm surprised you didn't do it about 5 posts ago.

I have known you since 2007.

Every time you start losing an argument, you put the person who is defeating you on ignore.

Usually, you first go on and on about how smart you are, and how stupid the other person is before telling everyone you are putting so and so on ignore.

However, all you have done this time, is yet again, show that Darby followers are not only in denial, but also that Dispensationalism cannot stand the test of scripture.