Copy and Pasted Conversation with Preterist

[Peter]

THE FOLLOWING IS FROM EXCHANGED PERSONAL MESSAGES.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS CONVERSATION WOULD HAVE BEEN SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT IF PARTIES HAD PLANNED ON IT BEING PRESENTED IN PUBLIC. IT IS HERE FOR INVENTORY, AND FURTHER EXPLORATION.

PANELS OR SUBJECTS FROM PANELS TO BE COPY AND PASTED AS SEPARATE THREADS.

FOLLOWING COPIED AND PASTED FROM PETE'S YOUTUBE OUTBOX. I BELIEVE I QUOTED ALL OF PRETERISTS POSTS IN THEIR ENTIRETY, WITH REPLIES INTERJECTED, BUT MIGHT HAVE MISSED ONE OR TWO.
PRETERIST PRIMARILY IN QUOTES:

[Pete]

[Disappeared and then attempted to restore from database]

Received original post on 5-28
Preterist wrote:
[[[[["Luke 21 is the Olivet Discourse. It was fulfilled in full in the Fall of Jerusalem.
The Time Text: "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled." Luke 21:32 "The times of the Gentiles" was the power given to the Romans to trample the city and Temple until it was gone. Josephus wrote that after that horrible event one could not tell that a great city had ever existed on that site.
One problem with the Historicist interp is that the current generation is always seen as in the last stage of history.
As someone once said, "10,000 years from now WE will be spoken of as the "Early Church"]]]]]

Response:
"Luke 21 is the Olivet Discourse. It was fulfilled in full in the Fall of Jerusalem. The Time Text: "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled." Luke 21:32"

That also can be defined as "the same" generation (little matter) that sees ALL OF THE THINGS FULFILLED.

"The times of the Gentiles" was the power given to the Romans to trample the city and Temple until it was gone."

I understand you need to believe this because it is the only way your doctrine can work. That's also why preterists have to rewrite the historical reality of when John was banished to Patmos and penned Revelation.

But the Romans were in power before AND AFTER 70 AD. In fact they whacked another 750,000 Jews just about 40 years later in the Bar Kokhba revolt. Gentiles times in Jerusalem could hardly be fulfilled by 70 AD by any rational non-indoctrinated view.

Who was there to greet the Mohammedans in 639? Bishop Sophronious of the Jerusalem church. Who had brief control "in the presence of" the Gentile Islamic beast? The Gentile Crusades. And later the Gentile British mandate. Nope.
THE TIMES OF THE GENTILES IN JERUSALEM were not fulfilled UNTIL THE JEWS FINALLY REGAINED CONTROL OF JERUSALEM, in 1967 for the first time in 2500 years.

Luke told us that it was JERUSALEM that was to be desolated. By the early 1800s there were only about 550 residents because of the desolation caused at the hand of antichrist Islam.
Even by 1867 Mark Twain described the area: “ ...[a] desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds-a silent mournful expanse....A desolation is here that not even imagination can grace with the pomp of life and action....". That's desolation.

You are likely too indoctrinated to see it, but Daniel predicted the Jews restoration right to the year, as shown in the attached video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdi8PzPWrb8
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.

"Josephus wrote that after that horrible event one could not tell that a great city had ever existed on that site."

But regardless of what one individual wrote, Jerusalem continued on under Gentile control, and persecutions continued.
Indeed the events of 70AD may be the opposite of spiritual desolation because all the Christians escaped and were saved out of it. What is God's interest? The spiritual or some buildings getting knocked down?

Meanwhile many of the Pharisees and Jews killed had made the Word of God of none effect (just like preterism, futurism, historicism, Catholicism, and every other ism). Jesus had already declared them desolate:
Mat 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
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.

"One problem with the Historicist interp..."

Historicism is a Catholic bashing heresy. (not that the Catholic church doesn't have even more doctrinal problems than preterism).

"...is that the current generation is always seen as in the last stage of history."

But not so for the TRADITIONAL continuous historic view, as the attached YouTube would clearly demonstrate, if you had open eyes to see it.

But then you likely think "The" "Antichrist" was Nero, even though there are 1.5 billion antichrists in the world today, in Islam alone. "Shirk" or anti-polytheism is manifest specifically in the declaration that God has no Son. This is the most important fundamental in Islam. That spirit of antichrist.

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......

"As someone once said, "10,000 years from now WE will be spoken of as the "Early Church"

Just as THE BIBLE predicted. Perhaps you agree with whoever that was:
2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.
May the Lord see fit to lead you out of the heresy of Catholic Jesuit Alcazar's 16th century anti-reformation doctrinal creation of preterism."

[Pete]

5-28

PS
I left this detail out:

This
New Testament Greek Definition:
3778 houtos {hoo'-tos} including nominative masculine plural
houtoi {hoo'-toy}, nominative feminine singular haute {how'-tay}
and nominative feminine plural hautai {how'-tahee}
from the article 3588 and 846;; pron
AV - this 157, these 59, he 31, THE SAME 28, this man 25, she 12,
they 10, misc 34; 356
1) this, these, etc.

"houtos" is defined as "the same" on 28 occasions in the KJV. Didn't want you to get the impression my claim was personal.

[Pete]

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.

[Pete]

5-29

You wrote: "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"."

Quite absurd.
I have pointed out that the "times of the Gentiles" were conspicuously not fulfilled - whacking another 750,000 Jews just 40 years later. And that John's prophecy was in the future of the late first century, with 70 AD in his past.

But I could use your help with historical references to the fulfillment of the following:

Matthew 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

[Pete]

5-29

"for some reason my 3 other replies to your vid won't post.(?)"


On YouTube I have had the luxury of having posts hang around for hours, days or weeks. When I first post it, sometimes I copy it, "remove" it, and paste it back changing a word or two to make it more clear, or embellishing. Maybe yours bumped heads with this activity. I will try to refrain from doing it again, and simply add another post if needed (though it will junk it up).


"I: >"quite absurd"? - ?!

The Olivet Discourse is all about the statement made by Jesus as He left the Temple. The disciples were marveling at the architecture of the Temple, and He shook them out of it by saying,

"As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down." Luke 21:6

It's the Destruction of Temple !
So "the times of the Gentiles " as part of that discourse WERE fulfilled - because the whole was fulfilled, the part was also fulfilled."


I already agreed this is a wonderfully fulfilled prophecy. This is discussed within the first 14 verses.


"This is the context and the subject of the ENTIRE Discourse."


I'm sorry, but this isn't so, even on the surface. There are many subjects. The temple is just one element.

I believe the Olivet Discourse is a mini-picture of the Christian era, including a description of the end. The temple is among "these things".
It is organized into sections. The first section (in which the temple is covered) ends:
Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; AND THEN SHALL THE END COME.

That begins a discussion of THE END ITSELF that runs continuously, not with a 2000 year gap. Great tribulation with a million Jews killed by the Romans. Another 750,000 Jews killed in the double-dip just 40 years later, Islamic physical and spiritual desolation that eventually reduced Jerusalem down to 550 residents, by the early 1800s.

The end of this section, about the end, closes with the return of Christ and gathering of His elect - the end of the end (no millennial reign I think you would agree):
Matthew 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Verses 32-37 describe HOW WE are to KNOW it is the time of the end and close with the coming of the Son of man.

Perterists look out the window to exegete this section, but turning to the bible for definitions, we find in Hosea 9:10 I found Israel like grapes in the wilderness; I saw your fathers as the firstripe in the fig tree at her first time:

Verses 38-41 describe WHAT the TIMES will be LIKE when this event takes place, and close with the coming of the Son of man and the gathering of the elect.

Verses 42-51 describe HOW we should PREPARE ourselves for this event, and close with the Second Coming and God's wrath on those left behind in verse 41.


"Nowhere does it change subject. Nowhere does it indicate that it applies to anything else, nor to any other time frame."


I understand your doctrine.


"How can it be "spiritualized" it into 2000 years of history? This is the problem with the Historicist interp. Some times it's helpfull but other times it ignores the context to impose it's own extra-Biblical grid onto the scriptures. Like - "a day in prophetic language 'always' means a year". That is "ignoring the context and the original audience's understanding of what was spoken"."


You won't sound so ignorant if you refer to my view as continuous historic. Historicism is a specific DOCTRINE just like you hold a doctrine. Historicists just happen to use the continuous historic context. The SDA heretics use the continuous historic context too.

And guess what else? If you understand Daniel's beasts to be successive kingdoms, or at least 69 of his 70 weeks to be weeks of days as years, YOU HOLD this traditional continuous historic view of Old Testament prophecy. Simply put, prophecy is fulfilled steadily, as the era it is written about gradually unfolds.

It was also the view of the reformers for Old and New Testaments.
You choose to throw out this traditional view and inconsistently switch entirely your view of New Testament prophecy, in favor of Alcazar.
I would appreciate it if you would quit tarring the continuous historic, or linear historic view, with the false label of historicism.


"More to the point is that "God coming in the clouds" is a Hebrew expression for Judgement coming to destroy Jerusalem."

I'm afraid that dog just won't hunt on my farm Rob.

Act 1:9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

Did this happen or not?

Act 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

You gonna spiritualize away these verses to fit Alcazar too? The truth is so much more fun! And you don't have to squeeze your eyes shut and put your fingers in your ears and hum, every time someone mentions the restoration of the Jews to their land.

[Pete]

5-29

"Just an aside:
Samuel Frost, cited on your webite is NOT a Preterist. He is a Heretic Preterist.

Do not confuse Orthodox Preterist with his Neo-Hymenaeunism.

This is what really angers me with those guys - they are making a bad name for the true Preterists."


Then perhaps you understand why I object to your tarring the traditional continuous historic context of understanding prophecy, with the label of historicist doctrine.

And why reduce this to discussion of messengers?
I offered the link, for the quotes of the early fathers listed. First time I ever saw the site was in the moments I searched, and then read it, before posting it. Don't know the first thing about whom you speak or the guy of the website.
I quick guessed it was futurist. That doesn't make me futurist either.


"I hold to the Orthodox Doctrine of the Concommitants of the 2nd Advent.
The following are yet future:
The 2nd Coming"


How can this be if, as you suggest, the Olivet Discourse is fulfilled? Jesus will return in the clouds just like He left.
Matthew 24:30 Coming or not?


"The Resurrection / Rapture"


How can this be if, as you suggest, the Oliver Discourse is fulfilled? Matthew 24:31 Gathering elect or not?


The Final Judgement of the Just & Unjust
At the Last Day""


Matthew 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet,
Last trumpet or not (for the gathering of the elect)? Seventh angel or not?

I agree that all these are future, but I don't see how you can.
At the last trump. The voice of the seventh angel. The single rapture and final judgment.

God's wrath is part of the discourse as well.
Matthew 24:51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint [him] his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

[Pete]

5-29

"SECOND, the Abomination of Desolation is interpreted by the Bible. "Scripture Interprets Scripture""


Exactly. Lion, bear, leopard beasts. Leopard-bear-lion beast.


The Gospels are synoptic, 3 contain the Olivet Discourse. Luke gives the intrep:
"And when ye shall see Jerusalem COMPASSED WITH ARMIES < TITUS AD 67 >, then know that the DESOLATION thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains;" Luke 21:20-21
Abom of Des = Jerusalem surrounded by Roman Armies.
"this generation shall not pass..."
Lk 21:32... tells us when."


Jerusalem was surrounded by armies in 70AD, 132, 639, Crusades, British mandate, etc. Which was the most significant desolation of these events? Hint, a soldier of the army might sexually enslave your 9 and up year old daughter, or wife, into a harem.


"YOU WROTE:
Ye is not synonymous with you. One of the reasons the KJV was written in an already antiquated English at the time, was to use this plural.

RIGHT... BUT IT "FIRST PERSON PLURAL" - MEANING TO ADDRESS THOSE BEFORE HIM - NOT OTHERS NOT ACTUALLY PRESENT. IE. YOU = "THEM" IN AD 30

How could John measure the literal temple, when he was in the penal colony ON PATMOS?
The book of Revelation is a VISION from chapter 4 on. It is absurd to suggest any kind of literal measuring of a temple is done in a vision.

That's akin to the futurist view that the temple in Ezekiel's vision is a literal rebuilt temple in our future.

NOT AT ALL. IF IT WAS AFTER AD 70 JOHN WOULD HAVE AT LEAST ASKED SOMETHING LIKE "WHAT TEMPLE?, THE TEMPLE IS GONE." "


That's silly. John isn't asking for a vision. John has a vision that he is describing. In that vision is a temple. Is this really that hard?


AND THE FACT THAT IT WAS BEING REPLACED BY THE NEW TEMPLE WHICH IS JESUS AND THE NEW JERUSALEM FROM HEAVEN - WHICH IS THE CHURCH.
(HEB "THE OLD IS PASSING THE NEW IS COME.")


You're doctrine is once again coming unglued. Jesus rebuilt the temple in 3 days, just like He said He would. AT HIS RESURRECTION. Not 40 years later.
John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. 20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? 21 But he spake of the temple of his body.


""Regarding John's audience, you may not be in it but I am:
Rev 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ...

PUT YOURSELF IN 67 AD WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN AND YOU ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF NERO'S PERSECUTION OF THE CHURCH = THE TRIBULATION.
DOMITIAN DID NOT PERSECUTE THE CHURCH - HE PRESECUTED EVERYONE.

Regarding the early writers confirming the dating of Revelation, please review the following link (for openers), and then respond with historical support for it NOT BEING Domitian who banished John to Patmos.

http://www.pfrs.org/preterism/pret01.html

I'LL GET BACK TO YOU ON THIS..."


I'll be content to humbly remain my brother John's companion in THE tribulation and in THE kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ. I guess you're saying you're not in the kingdom.
Plus I don't need to rewrite history to support my view.


"Reply "You are on slim evidnece to believe the Rev was written in 95 AD."

Not slim evidence but rather an 1800 year tradition, before the pop-doctrine of preterism required rewriting history, to accommodate Alcazar's anti-reformation doctrine as embraced by a part of the 20th century church.

THIS IS NONSENSE PRETREIST INTERP HAS BEEN AROUND SINCE THE BEGINNING. EARLY CHURCH WAS USING ALL 3 : IDEALIST; HISTORICIST AND PRETERIST. WHAT IS NEW IS FUTURIST."


Now you seem to be denying Alcazar.
Gnosticism was popular too.

If you believe that the Second Coming is yet future doesn't this make you a "partial" preterist, or preterist-lite?

[Pete]

5-29

Let me ask you a question.
If I were a Jew that you were witnessing to, do you think I could draw the impression that believed this:

"Well your dead father, and his dead father, and all their dead fathers before them back to the Cross, are burning in hell, but have I got such a deal for your!"

If not, why not?

[Pete]

5-30

Let's try a little hermeneutic exercise.
Why is one of John's Rev 13 "beasts" described as a composite of a leopard, bear, and lion?
What happens when we, as you suggest, let the bible explain this to us?

Is there anywhere else in scripture where we can find these figures, in the same context of a prophetic dream or vision?
If so can we learn anything from it?

Daniel 7:4 The first [was] like a lion, and had eagle's wings...
Daniel 7:5 And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear...
Daniel 7:6 After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard...
Daniel 7:7 After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly...

But what is a beast?

Daniel 7:23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth,...

A very large portion of the church understands Daniel's kingdom beasts to be the successive kingdoms of babylon, medo-persia, Greece and the Roman Empire. Even if you Yahoo search - "babylon, medo-persia, greece" - IN QUOTES, you will still get over 20,000 hits.

What if this large portion of the church is right? What if John's is a composite "beast" kingdom, of the first 3 of Daniel's beasts?

Revelation 13:2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as [the feet] of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

We can see that the dragon, satan, gives this kingdom "beast" his power, seat, and great authority. So where are Daniel's successive kingdom beasts today? They are past, but their territory - their seat - is not.

lion = babylon = Iraq
bear = medo-persia = Iran
leopard = greece = Syria/Lebanon

The seat of the Islamic empire beast. Full of satan's power. "Shirk" manifest specifically as God has no Son is the most important fundamental in Islam. This is that spirit of antichrist.

Power over the world through oil possession. The west even developed it for them. Trillions of dollars transfered through oil purchase to heal the mortal wound of the Islamic First Jihad, financing the Islamic Second Jihad, in the image of the First Jihad.

What is your understanding of this "beast" from Revelation 13, and why?

[Pete]

 5-30

""That's all very interesting to see the Olivet as unfolding continuously through the ages ...."


Not interesting as much as consistent. I continue to use the continuous historic context that you and I both use for Old Testament prophecy. You are the one who abandons it.


"But there is a little problem with the actual WORDS Jesus used: Like "this generation". If He meant to say "the generation that sees all these things ", He would've said that - or He would've said "that generation".
He clearly said 'THIS" = close proximity.
Also a "generation" is not 1000's of years - everywhere that the word is used it means the same thing - 40 years. Why would it's meaning suddenly change - here?"

Jesus also condemned the Temple in Matt 23:36, "Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. "


I guess you haven't read what I have written too carefully. You CANNOT KNOW that a literal generation rather than metaphorical was meant. To say you know would be a lie, though you require that understanding to advance your, anti-semitic, historically impossible, doctrine.
One more time:

generation - Check Strong's here
New Testament Greek Definition:
1074 genea {ghen-eh-ah'}
from (a presumed derivative of) 1085; TDNT - 1:662,114; n f
AV - generation 37, time 2, age 2, nation 1; 42

2b) metaph. a group of men very like each other in endowments,
pursuits, character


What you would be in effect saying is that Jesus castigated the Pharisees because they all happened to be born within the same biological generation.

But use a little common sense:
Mat 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

Was it the happenstance of their birth and their relative age that made them a generation of vipers?
Or was it the SIMILARITY IN CHARACTER, AND PURSUITS that they were condemned for?
Because of what they DID and HAD BECOME spiritually?

And perhaps through your bigoted doctrine you would suggest that ALL of the Pharisees were guilty and that NOT A SINGLE ONE could have had a circumcision of the heart.

Additionally to believe as you, would be to suggest that ONLY that single birth generation of Pharisees were guilty of allowing their traditions to nullify the Word of God. (Just like your phony preterist doctrine does).


"Notice the same words ? "This generation"

Notice the same subject? "The Temple left Desolate" "Not one stone here shall be left upon another"

The "desolation" was the Temple and City destroyed... because of all the righteous blood that was shed, and now, in AD30, they were about to kill the Lord of Glory, and His Disciples:"

"Wherefore, behold, I SEND UNTO YOU prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them YE SHALL kill and crucify; and some of them shall YE scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
That upon YOU may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom YE slew between the temple and the altar."
Matt 23:34,35

Matt 23:36, "Verily I say unto you, ALL THESE THINGS shall come upon this generation."

Matt 24:34, "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till ALL THESE THINGS be fulfilled. "

Same words, same subject, same timing.

"All these things " applies, at least, to the everything up to 24:34 - if not the entire chapter.
Each and every verse of the prophecy can be shown to have been fulfilled at that time.

Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; AND THEN SHALL THE END COME.
This, for example is not 'the" end - of history - but the end of the Temple and the elements of OT worship & sacrifices. I think you agree that they actually ended at the cross when He made the one sacrifice to fulfill all of them. But the rudimentary elements remained to be dismantled.
"For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but NOW once in the END of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. "Heb 9:26

When did He appear & suffer?
AD 30. And this period (30-70) was called "the end of the world".
What world was ending at that time?
The OT world with it's sacrifices & Temple."


Look at what an absurd statement your doctrine forced you to make. The world ended in 70AD.
Also, are you suggesting that old covenant sacrifices were a perfectly valid path between Jesus' resurrection and 70AD? That would be quite a suggestion for one that holds replacement theology.
So then I guess it wasn't Jesus sacrifice that made the old covenant obsolete, but destruction of a temple that Jesus had declared desolate, along with a whole generation of men (obviously metaphorical), About 38 years before.


"The Gospel was actually "preached in all the world".

"First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the WHOLE WORLD." Romans 1:8

"...in the word of the truth of the gospel;
6 Which is come unto you, as it is in ALL THE WORLD; ..." Col 1:5-6

>>It was also the view of the reformers for Old and New Testaments.
You choose to throw out this traditional view and inconsistently switch entirely your view of New Testament prophecy, in favor of Alcazar.

It is not something I take lightly - to disagree with the Reformers, however I must follow their example and hold to the scriptures as my final authority in faith and life."


Bull. You disagree with the reformers at every turn. Alcazar's doctrine was designed to fool them. So was Ribera's. They didn't buy it. Nobody did until the 20th century church when folks packed up their bibles and sat and listened to the bull of their seminary indoctrinated so-called "leaders", in Constantine's sophist style pulpit-pew paganism.

Matthew Henry - "this number of prophetic days, taking a day for a year'
Isaac Newton - "42 months, or 1260 days: and in these Prophecies days are put for years."


"And really, it is annoying for you to repeat this name, Alcazar. I didn't get this from him and I know very little of his system.
He wasn't the inventer of it. It has been found in the early fathers as well."


Most of the futurists I exchange with don't know that Darby is the origin of their eschatology either. They, like you, can glean bits and pieces from the early church to support pre-conceived notions. But folks do that to support all manner of heresy, because all manner of heresy was written in the early church, including gnosticism. Because you can find something there doesn't mean the gnostics were right either.


"I really wasn't aware of a distinction between "the continuous historic, or linear historic view, with the false label of historicism"."


You even mentioned Historicism being in the early church, but historicism is more of a response to the Catholic church murder of millions of Christians and the papacy and/or the catholic church being antichrist. A very much anti-catholic post-reformation doctrine. Indeed it couldn't have been in the early church because Constantine didn't even declare himself to be the first pontificus maximus until the 3rd century.

The church really went downhill from there. THE ERROR in the church is men appointing themselves and other men into positions of "authority". The Catholic church is the most conspicuous example, but the same happens even in so-called non-denominational denominations. Seminary is little more than brainwashing. It creates the most tightly closed group of eyes, who then go on to become nicolaitians.
Jesus Christ is the head of the church.

[Pete]

5-30

>>>Act 1:9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

>>>Did this happen or not?

No, definitely not."


Now you have gone total heretic. You pretend that you use the bible. But when the bible says that those around Jesus watched Him ascend and disappear into a cloud, you say it didn't happen.


"This is speaking of His return, while Matt 24 was not about His return. Jesus was answering the question of the Disiples as to 'when" and 'what will be the signs", in reference to His "coming" to destroy the Temple. In Matt 24 they didn't yet understand that He would be leaving them, so they would'nt have thought to ask about His return - would they?

Act 1:9 is not the same as "coming in the clouds of heaven" in the context of judgment on the Temple. It is about His 2nd Advent while Matt 24 is not.
This is the same mistake Dispy's make, as well as Heretical Preterists."


There is no account of Jesus being seen coming in the clouds by all the tribes in 70AD. Gotta put the buzzer on you there. Plus the very next verse is the gathering of the elect (or what some call the rapture), at the sound of a trumpet. But then I suppose you call that the OTHER gathering of the elect.

I guess Jesus just keeps coming and going in the clouds. That would make the next one Jesus' third coming, unless there is one after that. Yea right.
And all to support some 16th century Jesuit created ant-reformation heresy. And now you're the anti-reformation guy. Congratulations.

[Pete]

5-30

""I am glad you are so persistent. Most I discuss with won't go far before they quit or block me."


That's because they weren't walking in the truth. They couldn't support their view with scripture. Neither have you. You've done nothing but torture the Word of God.


"Thanks, I'm learning alot, you're forcing me to read more carefully and also to better explain.

>>Or was it the SIMILARITY IN CHARACTER, AND PURSUITS that they were condemned for?
Because of what they DID and HAD BECOME spiritually?

You are right. They were of the same character..."


or GENERATION


"...of all those in the past that shed innocent blood from Abel, and therefore they would suffer wrath. However they also did what previous generations had not done - crucify the Lord.
No other generation had done that, nor ever will again."


This is the result of the bigotry and antisemitism that your doctrine inevitably breeds. That's why the presbyterian leaders met with hezbollah.

No my friend, it wasn't the Jews that crucified Jesus. t was the sinful nature of mankind - you and me brother - that crucified Jesus. And you're doing it all over again. The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world.


""Therefore their generation would not pass until it was fulfilled."


Or the generation of regenerate men of the Christian era.


"This coupled with the context of the Temple's destruction is the reason I insist it is restricted to a contemporary fullfillment. Also the bit about "you who are in Judea flee..." can't apply to anything else, - it's localized not globalized."


The desolation at the hand of Islam happened to JERUSALEM just like Luke said it would. Just 550 souls left by the early 1800s. I also understand through an ethnographic hermeneutic.
That is how John's successive satanic kings or "beast" kingdoms are in such an obvious order. Each fell to the next - in the middle east. Today virtually John's "whole world" is marked by, and worships, the beast.


">>Look at what an absurd statement your doctrine forced you to make. The world ended in 70AD.
Also, are you suggesting that old covenant sacrifices were a perfectly valid path between Jesus' resurrection and 70AD?

I didn't say that nor suggest it. I wrote"....


Here is a copy and paste of what YOU WROTE (and I am not going to continue if you are going to be this careless):

"When did He appear & suffer?
AD 30. And this period (30-70) was called "the end of the world".
What world was ending at that time?
The OT world with it's sacrifices & Temple."

End of the world is end of the world. You've got several ends of the world and several comings of Jesus in the clouds. Doesn't that give you even a moment's pause?

Next time please bother to go back and actually read what you wrote.


" This, for example is not 'the" end - of history - but the end of the Temple and the elements of OT worship & sacrifices. I think you agree that they actually ended at the cross when He made the one sacrifice to fulfill all of them. But the rudimentary elements remained to be dismantled."

Again , the validity of the Temple & sacrifices ended at the Cross. Hear me this time?
The Elements - the Temple and it's entire system should have been dismantled at that moment by the Priests themselves - but they refused to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah, Prophet, Priest & King. It was over and they refused to leave the Temple to follow Him.
The "world" that ended was the Temple / priesthood/ sacrificial system.
"Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father." John 4:21

Can I be more clear?"


All you are doing is blowing more of your indefensible presumption and poppycock.


">>You disagree with the reformers at every turn.

Or do ? They insisted on Sola Scriptura Tota Scriptura. I am interpreting scripture with scripture."


Bull. You have tortured and turned virtually every verse inside out to make them conform to your single word (generation) doctrine. You've even got 3 comings of Jesus.

I hope you are working on the lion, bear, and leopard beast PM I sent. I can't wait to see how you torture and spiritualize away that simple and stunning truth, too.


"Let me ask you,
A) do you hold to infant baptism as they did?

B) Do you also hold to the WFC's statement :
"There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ.[13] Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.[14] [but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.] (WFC 25:6) ?

C) How about "The Regulative Principle of Worship"?

Is there room for re-examining them?"

There is no room for throwing them out entirely with alcazar's anti-reformation doctrine.

Nor to I hold some of their false presumption that the papacy was "the" antichrist, though I can understand their interest in an outcome driven exegesis in light of their being burned at the stake. That's the problem with believing prophecy was given with which to predict the future.

[Pete]

5-30

"What the -?

You are one to jump to conclusions, and rush to judgement.

I meant that His 2nd coming had not occurred. Guess I mispoke.

My point was that the "clouds recieved Him" in Acts is not the same phrase or context as "the Son of Man coming in the clouds".
The latter is not the 2nd coming, while the former is."


I pasted TWO verses from Acts. His departure and the cloud that receive Him and how He will return:

Act 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.



"He will only come in the clouds once. You only have to torture

And did God literally come in clouds when Nebuchadnezzar attacked Jerusalem and took the Jews captive ?

No it was figurative just as Jesus "coming in the clouds" is figurative of His Judgement of the Temple."


And that's twice you have ignored the gathering of the elect of the very next verse. No wonder people quit you. You get sloppier and sloppier.
Plus you have also ignored perhaps half of what I have written. Why do you suppose that is? I cannot waste my time like that.

[Pete]

5-30

You certainly are harsh.

I stand falsly accused.

>>>Nor to I hold some of their false presumption that the papacy was "the" antichrist, though I can understand their interest in an outcome driven exegesis in light of their being burned at the stake.

So you can question the eschatology of the Reformers but I can't?
Rather hypocritical don't you think?"


You missed the big picture. You are chipping at the edges.
The reformers held the continuous historic view for Old and New Testament prophecy, and indeed the church did, until the pop-heresies came into the church in the 20th century. It is required for the language of prophecy of each day for a year.


">>>You have tortured and turned virtually every verse inside out to make them conform to your single word (generation) doctrine. You've even got 3 comings of Jesus.


Sorry you dont' follow logic. I never said 3 comings. I said the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in AD 70 - in his coming in Judgement against Apostate Israel to END the Jewish Covenant.

The 2nd Coming is yet future - Acts 1:11

I clearly stated that Olivet is NOT the 2nd Coming."


Indeed. Just another coming, to you. And just another gathering of the elect.


">>>
When did He appear & suffer?
AD 30. And this period (30-70) was called "the end of the world".
What world was ending at that time?
The OT world with it's sacrifices & Temple."

>>End of the world is end of the world. You've got several ends of the world and several comings of Jesus in the clouds. Doesn't that give you even a moment's pause?

I am not sure what the problem is..."


And again you ignore the gathering of the elect in the Olivet discourse. I guess this is just another gathering of the elect to you. How many raptures do you find? Even the futurists only have two.


YOU TELL ME - WAS THE OLD COVENENT WORLD COMING TO AN END AS CHRIST ENTERED THE WORLD, DIED, RESURRECTED AND ASCENDED.... AND THEN DESTROYED THE OUTWARD ELEMENTS OF THE OT (TEMPLE & CITY)....

--OR NOT?"


You only want it to be about the flesh to suit your doctrine. Jesus rebuilt the temple in 3 days, not 38 years. The temple stood already desolate, likely from before He was even crucified. You seem to be pretending that somehow Judaism ended, simply because an already desolate temple was torn down.


">>>The desolation at the hand of Islam happened to JERUSALEM just like Luke said it would. Just 550 souls left by the early 1800s. I also understand through an ethnographic hermeneutic.
That is how John's successive satanic kings or "beast" kingdoms are in such an obvious order. Each fell to the next - in the middle east. Today virtually John's "whole world" is marked by, and worships, the beast.

LOOK WHO'S TORTURING SCRIPTURE NOW."

Not at all tortured. Are you suggesting that Jerusalem was more desolate in 70 AD than in 1800? I am talking about desolation in every sense. The Christians weren't even killed in 70AD for heaven's sake.

Regarding John's beasts I was illustrating that we both understand the ethnographic hermeneutic and used John's "whole world" as an example:

Strong's
world
New Testament Greek Definition:
3625 oikoumene {oy-kou-men'-ay}
feminine participle present passive of 3611 (as noun, by
implication of 1093); TDNT - 5:157,674; n f
AV - world 14, earth 1; 15
1) the inhabited earth
1a) the portion of the earth inhabited by the Greeks, in
distinction from the lands of the barbarians
1b) the Roman empire, all the subjects of the empire

Virtually John's whole world is antichrist today. If you can't see this you are more blind than I even suspected.


"Olivet - in context - not stretched into your "silly putty exegisis" "


But I already explained that my continuous historic view is traditional.


"....pertained to Roman Armies surounding the City. Luke 21:20
Isalm didn't exist until 700 years later."


The elements of Jesus words ran from when he was delivering the discourse until the end of the world until Jesus Second Coming which is yet in our future. Not some phony make believe end of some relative world. Nope. Includes the gathering of the elect which you still ignore for increasingly obvious reasons.


"...and according to 1 cor 15:24-26 clearly says that christ rules the world until His enemies are defeated - the last enemy standing will be death itself."


Yes. We are in the kingdom. In the discourse the end of death happens when all the tribes see Jesus come in the clouds and the elect are gathered at the sound of a trumpet. THE END.


"So, though things look bleak in the present..."


Exegesis of scripture through the evening news is the domain of TBN. I only discuss fulfilled scripture.


".....we have hope that progressively the nations will be discipled and Christianity will wield greater influence in the future."


This is purely the product of your silly doctrine. Mankind will not make it. We're mankind. All your righteousnesses are as rags.

The church is stumbling around blind, comotose in indefensible eschatology. One of the biggest hurtles I have to face when evangelizing Muslims is church heresy.

Muslims are very convicted by being called antichrist than anything.
Then they present some of Deedat's sophist lies and I defeat that. Then they dash off and pop on Yahoo and come back with "Oh Noooo, Christians believe "The" "Antichrist" was Nero". Or "Nooo antichrist is some left behind boogeyman of the silver screen yet to come.?"

Ask the guy next to you in church "What is the antichrist?" Do you really think he will say it is the spirit in the heart of EVERYONE who denies Jesus is the Christ, denies the father and the son, or denies Jesus Christ is come in the flesh? Will he tell you that 1.5 billion Muslims are antichrist as the most important fundamental of their religion? And that number doesn't even count the atheist neighbor where your kids go to hang out?
Yea right.


"It may take another 10,000 years, but He will put them under his feet..."


Mankind is fallen period. We have 1.5 billion Muslims headed to perdition and all you can do is hope.....and scoff.

2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.


2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

[Pete]

5-30

"So the "gathering of the elect" is evangelists (angels) going out to the world, in all directions from one end of heaven to another... calling the elect into the church by the heralding (trumpet) of the Gospel....all over the world."

That's absurd. That would be DISPERSION. The OPPOSITE of gathering.

[Pete]

5-31

"Also, I don't agree with using Eschatology for evangelism. Dispy's do it every day & they've bungled the whole affair.You are better off pointing out the contradictions of Islam. Like "Allah is unknowable"? Then it is impossible for the 'Prophet" to have heard from him or to know of him."

Whatever you do or don't agree with is irrelevant. I myself, was led to the Lord through eschatology. The Lord then called me deeper into it.

X-Muslim Ergun Caner said it takes the average Muslim about 7 years to leave Islam (because the sacrifices are so great, family, job, friends, etc.).
I have found a multi-pronged approach works best.

For example, I devoted the following website for Muslims to be introduced to the Word. Words are bolded and enlarged that speak to Islam.
The book of John and his epistles are THE biggest Islam slayer. Nothing will make a Muslim squirm more than being called an antichrist, and seeing the verses that back up the accusation.
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/

Meanwhile the church is stuck in it's heresies of "The" "Antichrist" having been Nero, perhaps over and done with, or some future silver screen left behind series boogeyman, or the Catholic church.
I imagine your phony doctrine would tell them Nero was "The" "Antichrist", IN SPITE of the scriptures. Even my spellcheck tries to make me capitalize it. The church has gone mad.

My other websites:
beholdthebeast.com The original attempt at a little gradual intro.
Israelinbibleprophecy.com Geared more toward your blind church.


The very first YouTube I present on my channel shows Daniel's miraculous math that pins the Jews restoration to their land and city, that you, of course, have yet to comment on.
Zionism is the most controversial subject in the world, and the church today, and the anti-zionism of the preterist church is the most evil manifestation of the denial of God's EVERLASTING land covenanrt with His people. Satan's ugly doctrine that you believe, that puts you on the side of the antichrist Muslim terrorists.

But you likely despise Israeli Jews so much to even consider the perfection of the mathematics, since you have replaced them through your own personal piety and finger pointing, and they have all been sent to hell ever since the Cross anyway. Gee, if the Israelis would only give them that land God appointed to the Jews, everything would be peaceful....like in the Sudan.



I am trying to find a Christian who's not a heretic in Japan, where an X-Muslim now resides, to help with baptism. That's a TALL order. I believe I mentioned to him that if anyone mentions "classes" first, to run like a scalded dog.


SO WHAT APPROACH did you use to bring in your Muslim harvest?
Have you ever even tried to see through their eyes?
Every 7-10 verses in the Quran are about hell. They get hell talk. They even have to visit hell before heaven unless they blow themselves up in a bus load of Jewish school children.

They are scared into staying in Islam, just like the Catholic church bends young minds and damages children for life. Fear of truth. "Sola scriptura, sola scriptura...." they shout in accusation as they walk down the path of Marianism.

That's why Mohammed does not allow a Muslim to be a friend of a Christian or Jew (kafir). If one says he is your friend he is either lying or apostate.


Your false doctrine didn't even pass the laugh test from the get go, requiring rewriting history. Anti-zionism is why THE ENEMY put that doctrine in your head. So you could march shoulder to shoulder against the Jews.

Yours has been one of the ugliest and unsupported doctrines I have ever seen, and I have seen plenty.
There, there, go on back to your "council" and have them reinject you with their satanic crap.
MAKE NO MISTAKE ALL FALSE DOCTRINE IS THE WORK OF THE ENEMY.

Why do you suppose it is that you still haven't shot back an answer to the leopard-bear-lion PM I sent, with your version of hermeneutically sound exegesis?

[Pete]

5-31

"OK, John's whole world?
You are referring to the world of the Roman Empire - which no longer exixts..."


I see. A vacuum exists where the Roman Empire was?
Don't be silly.

The Roman Empire fell to the Islamic Empire during the First Jihad. STILL IN POWER. STILL IN THE SEAT SATAN GAVE IT. STILL EMPOWERED BY SATAN. THE SECOND JIHAD.
The last in the succession of kingdoms that oppress God's people. Perhaps you believe Islam to be a peaceful religion, in spite of 1400 years of conquest of the non-islamic world.


"....as it did in John's day. It's gone and yet you make the stretch to apply it to today's world?"


The last empire isn't a vacuum, but your heresy still is.
You don't even seem to understand what John was assigned.

Revelation 1:19 Write the things which THOU hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which SHALL BE hereafter;

So when John gives us a list of beasts we look standing in his place in history:

Revelation 17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, [and] the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. 11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

So we have 8 kings/beasts.
Daniel defined beast in the context of a dream or vision:

Daniel 7:23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth,

Five fallen, Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece "one is" to John the Roman Empire.
Then the Roman empire fell to the 7th THE ISLAMIC FIRST JIHAD, 152 years to it's peak and mortal wound in 732 AD, at the hands of Charles Martel, pinned to the year by Daniel's 1335 days.
152 years is a "short space" indeed relative to these kingdoms.

"….. he is the eighth, and of the seven: he was therefore a collateral part of the seventh." - Isaac Newton

The Islamic Second Jihad is the eighth. Of the seventh, First Islamic Jihad.


"Also you ignore the bible's definition of "Anti-Christ""


You wouldn't be telling THIS LIE if you had bothered to look at my YouTube titled...."ANTICHRIST'. I will leave you with them.
All that I wasted my time on you with here, is included in the YouTubes. If you choose to soil my Tubes with your hopelessly unsupportable anti-zionist anti-Jew doctrine, you will simply be providing fuel for your Muslim brothers, to continue to deny they that they worship satan.


". It's only mentioned in 2 places and both were written by John."


That's right. In 4 verses. Perhaps the single most important element in our arsenal with which to conquer Islam with our Sword of the Spirit. If you don't like YouTubes here's the text version:
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/antichrist.htm


(1Jn & 2Jn ) If He meant it to refer to the Beast in Rev he would have used that word, but he didn't!


Daniel defined beast as kingdom in a prophetic dream. He did it with 3 of the very same figures, the lion, bear and leopard. That ANYONE could miss this in scripture is laughable.

The Islamic Empire is the kingdom beast of Revelation 13. The last in the succession of satanically controlled kingdom beasts that reign in the Middle East.
Seated right where Daniel's lion, bear and leopard beasts were seated. The seat that satan gave to them. Along with their power.

I'm sorry but I have already wasted altogether too much time on you. You suffer from more self-imposed blindness than some of the Muslims I exchange with.
You can't even seem to see that there are 1.5 billion antichrists in Islam alone, even though most of them become quite convicted by it, because the truth of the scriptures is so apparent. "Shirk", the most important fundamental, is specifically manifest as God has no Son.

Surah 9.30 The Jews call 'Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the Son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; (In this) they but imitate what the Unbelievers of old used to say. God's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!
Surah 112.2 Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; 3 He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;

Sorry but I need to devote more time to Muslims that, unlike you, at least sometimes put a little effort into understanding.

[Pete]

5-31

Pete asks:

PS
I would apprecate a head's up on the method you have used to bring Muslims to Christ. I'm always ready to inventory a new insight/angle, as long as it's based on scripture and truth.

[Pete]

5-31

Your eyes are evermore closing.

"I don't doubt that it may be effective to use eschatology in this way. However I see danger in it because of the backlash with Dispensationalism.
Hal Lindsey and Chuck Smith told everyone to "get saved" because the Rapture would happen in 1981. When 1982 came and went alot of folks got real tired of all the double talk trying explain the false prophecy and left the faith. Since then Atheists have had a fun time ridiculing Christianity for that bungle. It's a huge embarrassment."

The heretics you mention are walking in John Darby's false doctrine. You failed to even notice that EVERYTHING I have written regards FULFILLED PROPHECY, not some guesswork theology or anti-zionist bullcrap.
From my the antichrist page of my website:

"The folly of interpreters has been to foretell times and things by this prophecy [Revelation], as if God designed to make them prophets. By this rashness they have not only exposed themselves, but brought the prophecy also into contempt. The design of God was much otherwise. He gave this and the prophecies of the Old Testament, not to gratify men's curiosities by enabling them to foreknow things, but that after they were fulfilled they might be interpreted by the event, and his own providence, not the interpreters', be then manifested thereby to the world. For the event of things predicted many ages before will then be a convincing argument that the world is governed by Providence." - Sir Isaac Newton


I can't spend the time on you any more but if you bother to look at the first 6 videos on my channel, or better go to my main website, it will show you in EXCRUCIATING detail, what I believe. I really can't afford the time I have spent with you, when I could be spending it on a Muslim. Hope you understand.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/index.htm

[Pete]

5-31

"Now you and yours are doing the same thing with Islam."


You are a liar, and you have exhibited everything foul that happened to the church. You even deluded yourself into believing you had the authority to instruct the best way to save Muslims. Very Constantinian of you. 2,000 denominations out there and your's just happens to be right, though it doesn't fit the bible OR historical record.

Are Muslims antichrist or not? How is calling a Muslim an antichrist the same thing as saying Jesus is coming in 1988.
I am finished with you. You are a liar.


"I suggest it again doesn't hold up to scriptural scrutiny and you accuse me of heresy. wow..."


You've not made a single point against my beliefs on a scriptural basis, while you repeatedly come across with the most unscriptural inverted pyramid of pile-on presumption that I have seen, next to futurism. But then they were cut from the same cloth. Catholic Jesuit's deception.

You ran like a little girl from expressing your view of the leopard-bear-lion beast. You have had days to respond since that was sent so don't give me the bullcrap about not enough time. You have had plenty of time to spew your nonsense in the intervening period. You have avoided perhaps half of what I have written, and now you come back looking for me to repeat it.


"As for your Zionism... do you believe anyone can come to the Father another way except Christ?"


You don't understand what Zionism is.
Zionism is about Jews being restored to the land God gave them in an everlasting covenant.

Genesis 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an EVERLASTING possession; and I will be their God.

As a Jew of the circumcision of the heart I consider that it is my covenant too, and partake WITH them in the fatness and root of the "good olive tree".
Some of the genetic Jews restored believe in Christ, some believe in God, some are agnostic, and some are atheist.


"(If you think Jews can then you are preaching 'another Gospel")

"This is not "Replacent Theology" - of which you falsely accuse, it is THE GOSPEL...."


You believe that Christians have replaced the Jews as God's people. This is replacement theology. If you deny this then let me know.
Do you believe that all of the believing Jews whose lives have revolved around their temple community, from whose eyes the Lord may not yet have lifted the spirit of slumber, are all burning in hell, ever since the Cross?


But since you will likely ignore this again I will pause before wasting more of my time.

[Pete]

5-31

"As for the Beast... I am leaving town a few days and don't have time to deal with that as thoroughly as You'd like.

In a "nutshell", I will say that it was the Roman Empire - 10 realms and 7 Caesars ("one who is" = Nero. Nero was not "the antiChrist" - he was the current head of the Beast at that time.) "


What does that have to do with a lion, bear and leopard?

[Pete]

6-2

[[[>>Do you believe that all of the believing Jews whose lives have revolved around their temple community, from whose eyes the Lord may not yet have lifted the spirit of slumber, are all burning in hell, ever since the Cross?

A believing Jew is one who has recieved Christ as the Messiah and has forsaken their Jewish practices of "types and shadows".]]]]


This is what your bigoted replacement theology says. Why on earth would you deny it, when you are so wise in your conceit and zealous for it?

SOME of the branches were broken off because of UNBELIEF. Do Jews believe in God or not?
The broken off branches are described as "natural" branches.
Then what is a natural branch?

1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.


[[[Anyone - Jew , Muslim, Buddhist, or whatever that has not recieved Christ - will go to hell.
You disagree with the Gospel?]]]]


I only disagree with filthy, bigoted heresy that puts atheist Jews in the same group as believing Jews - whether they believe in Jesus, or whether they believe in God and from whose eyes the Lord hasn't yet lifted their blindness.


[[[Do you think a Jew goes to heaven without Christ?]]]


I don't believe they ever did. When was the Lamb slain?


[[["Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:" Romans 3:29

"For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
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." Romans 2:28-29]]]]


EXACTLY.


[[[>>Are Muslims antichrist or not?

Yes they are and so are unbelieving Jews, Buddhists, atheists, Communists, etc...]]]

Do Jews believe in the Father, and in the Son of God?

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us A SON IS GIVEN: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and HIS NAME shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, THE MIGHTY GOD, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

You have put the Jews who believe in the Father and the Son, (sovereignly blinded from recognizing that Jesus IS that Son) in the same group as Muslims who DENY THE SON - AS THE PRIMARY FUNDAMENTAL of their religion. Well done!

What is the only group that could be enemies of the Gospel, but still be beloved?

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.

Some will remain sovereignly blinded until the fullness of the Gentiles, or nations be come in, won't they?:

Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Ahhh, but the preterist..... he knows through his wisdom and conceit. He is so familiar with God's judgments that he states casually and matter-of-factly that the answer to this mystery is that all of the Jews that have believed in God, ever since the Cross, are burning in hell.

Rom 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable [are] his judgments, and his ways past finding out!


You know, I am going to bet that you have brought even fewer Jews to Christ than you have Muslims to Christ.
Or perhaps I should have said the same number of Jews as Muslims.

Here's why.
First you don't seem willing, even for a moment, to consider that you may not understand this MYSTERY.
Or at least that's what I consider it to be.

I have had several conversations for several hours each with a Jewess. Talking about God and Jesus, and pouring over the bible in both Testaments, and talking about the evil of Islam, and the blindness of the U.S. to their evil acts that are censored by our news, and the evil of posers in the church who are siding with Islamic terrorists, like the Pope and Presbyterian leaders and such, even while they condemn the Jews.

I think that she may believe in Jesus. I haven't specifically asked because am not compelled to rush it. Look up the term cognitive dissonance if you aren't familiar with it. I wasn't until recently, but it's a great term to describe what I have been observing repeatedly for over two years, beginning with my own experience.

Recently I began the same kind of conversation with a male Jew. And the next time we saw each other we found ourselves unbelievably warmly and intimately bonded as brethren. We can talk about God, Jesus, Constantinian church heresy, anything.

Now how well do you think the Lord would be served if I had suggested "Well, your dead father, and their father's dead fathers, all the way back to the Cross are all burning in hell, but have I got such a deal for you!"?

You are likely too blind to see this, but NO MATTER WHAT you said to them through the filter of your heresy, this is what their ears would necessarily hear. Now imagine if you were him.

[Pete]

6-5

[[[Your assertion that Preterist interp is a Jesuit invention and that Historicist is orthodox is answered here:

http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/demarminimalism1.html

And Here:

http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/demarminimalism2.html]]]]

You do not read what I write, nor do you respond to what I write. I wasted a tremendous amount of time even while you ignored me. I am not going to resume that.

I asserted that Historicist, as well as SDA is more post papal persecution of Reformers doctrine.

I also asserted that YOU HOLD THE TRADITIONAL CONTINUOUS HISTORIC VIEW of Old Testament prophecy if you believe that prophecy was fulfilled steadily as the era about which it is written unfolded.

I would appreciate it if you quit soiling my space, because your bigoted, anti-antisemitic, anti-Zionist false doctrine created eyes, are going to effectively promote Islam, and provide comfort to the Muslims in Mohammed's false doctrine, including those who may be coming seeking Jesus. Did you even notice the Muslim responses?  Are you so secure in your heresy that you stand ready to place yourself between them and what they are seeking in my Tubes?

How many Muslims has the Lord led to your YouTubes? How many PMs have you exchanged with them?
Do you have any close Jewish friends in your real life?

Do you even see how grotesquely you misrepresented what I explained to you repeatedly, previously, with the spurious content this PM?

How you entirely ignored what I had clearly wasted my time writing to you repeatedly in the past? This is the last reply. I can't afford to waste my time with such.

[Pete]

6-6

[ discussion regarding bickering and declaration of another Christian's view in regard to figurative language of prophecy to "fall flat", is inappropriate in front of lost spectators, since they don't have a clue one way or another as to whether either view is valid. Just sends them back into satan's grip.]


Follow link and listen to the Paul Washer GodTube that was - hopefully still is - winning him to the Lord:
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/christian_testimonies.htm


Do you really believe Jesus Christ granted you the AUTHORITY to judge someone else's interpretation of FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE even claiming it to "fall flat"? Judging it through the window of your historically unsupportable doctrine, that drives you to believe that your INTERPRETATION of the FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE OF A PROPHETIC VISION in REVELATION is necessarily the correct or only answer?