5-29
"Right.
I heard all that from F. Nigel Lee and it's all fascinating enough."
Since I am not familiar with Mr. Lee, I would very much appreciate if you could show me where he suggested the mathematics of Daniel's "times" problems pegging the years 1948 and 1967, or John's pinning the year 688, is found in his writing.
"However all that is required for the Olivet Discourse to be fulfilled is the Temple was "not one stone left that was not torn down"."
Your doctrine already failed just with the "times of the Gentiles". My view recognizes the stunning fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy too.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/matthew_24_olivet_discourse.htm"IN context of the prophecy it was indeed fulfilled. NO need to parse the greek..."
Indeed it was, nor do I need to parse the Greek. This generation has seen the "times of the Gentiles" in Jerusalem fulfilled, whether a literal or metaphorical generation was meant.
"...to "shoe horn" it into your Historicist interp." Alcazar may have something to do with it's systemization..."
Alcazar created this false doctrine, AS A FALSE DOCTRINE, in a Catholic Church anti-reformation effort. Just like Jesuit Ribera created the false doctrine of futurism for the same purpose.
Don't you find it Interesting that it took 16 centuries for your church to discover it?
"...but if the system doesn't hold up under sound hermanuetics, it doesn't stand."
Exactly. Lion, bear, leopard beasts. Leopard-bear-lion beast.
But your's doesn't stand under the first simple element I brought up. Just like when I show a 7th day Advent person the verses for antichrist, when they accuse the Catholic church of being antichrist. Down in flames on a single element.
"BUT it does stand - more consistently than Historicist."
But I already explained that I believe the Historicist view to be a falsely Catholic bashing heresy. Yet because you are boxed into a failed doctrine, it would seem you feel compelled to stuff others into one as well. Do you even REALLY see what you did?
"So no need for the false accusation of "heretical" unless you have a church counsel that has so ruled - with sound Biblical reasoning.
Ninth Commandment and all..."
That you would say this in the light of a couple thousand protestant denominations is downright laughable. Indeed the Chruch with the most history and demonstrably oldest "church counsel" is the very same one that murdered millions of Christians. Yet they still lay claim Cyprian's doctrine of apostolic succession.
Nope. If something can't hold up to scripture, it's false. Whether Marianism or perterism.
Which "church council" are you lorded over by? This will help me direct my responses.
On that subject, I highly recommend Frank Viola's books, starting with "Pagan Christianity".
">"The temple was also desolated by Jesus shed blood. As one in replacement theology you would have difficulty disagreeing that the temple was desolate almost 40 years before it was torn down. "
"I would agree with you that is was His Death on hte cross tha made the house desolate.
"Replacement theology " is a straw mand erected by Dispensastionalists to discrdit any who disagree with their "2 people of God" teaching.
I hold that there is, and has always been One people of God: Israel was the "church" in the OT - and the church is "Israel" in the NT."
>"Tragically the preterists not only have to spiritualize away the book of Revelation, but they are the most anti-semitic portion of the church, through replacement theology. Same crowd that counts the highest number of those who claim the Jews killed Jesus."
I don't know who you'v' been listening to, but that is the opposite of Preterist."
Besides countless preterists in chatrooms who declare that the Jews killed Jesus, try this Yahoo - presbyterian leaders meet with hezbollah -
"As a Preterist I hold that the only way to God is through Christ. To deny that Jews, as with all people, must come to Christ to be saved, is anti-semetic."
I don't know how you could be ignorant of this, but this is replacement theology.
"To believe that the Jews are saved simply because of birth is Heresy!"
Of course it would be!
Rom 2:29 But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God.
">"But then your doctrine can't even allow you to consider for a moment that Mohammed could be THE false prophet of Revelation, even though he has led his minions to perdition for 1400 years - Another 1.5 billion - 1/4 of mankind - as I write.
Oh well......
TYou have the same problem that Dispy's have - You ignore the time Texts. REV 1:1, 3 "things that must SHORTLY come to pass..." "the tome is AT HAND>>>"
The prophecies were to take place soon after it was written. - Not gradually over 3000 years.
Islam is indeed anti-Christ but the false prophet was Israel committing whoredoms with Rome."
You snatch yet another element, entirely out of historical reality (Revelation was written around 95AD). This is the "smoking gun" as this single greatest element destroys your doctrine. That's why preterists must change history and Domitian's banishment of John to Patmos.
Just like you pretend the term "generation" Is some sort of "proof" of Alcazar's doctrine, and then go on to suggest it has further support with THE false prophet - a singular individual - being Israel? See what I meant by spiritualizing away the book of Revelation?
But here you have gone beyond simple replacement theology and into something more Hitleresque.
Tell me, what do you suppose is meant by the following:
Rom 11:28 As concerning the gospel, [they are] enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, [they are] beloved for the fathers' sakes.
When does the bible say the Lamb was slain?
Have you noticed you ignore the meatier portions of my notes? What do you make of Daniel's math? Some of John's is attached to this note.