Why Preterism is a false doctrine

[Monterrey]

Originally Posted by afp1996

Brother, I knew that you would have to go there. That is why I asked you this question. A newspaper article and the name of a tank is not going to cut it by biblical standards. Daniel clearly lays out who those beasts were. They are Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. ANY other interpretation is just plain non-founded and without any biblical proof.

Greece was under Alexander the Great, and was then separated to his four Generals. It is clear.

Please show me where I attacked Irvin Baxter. Was it here? :

This is not an attack. I used to believe as his does before I even knew who he was, but then I came to understand the scriptures more perfectly. This was not an attack on Irvin Baxter, but you seem to be doing anything to martyr the messager to secure the constititution of the message. Only it falls short. Notice I said "it" and not "he". I am talking about the message.

Bottom line: Tanks do not make countries into beasts.

No, you are wrong!

Let me explain it one more time for the slow pickerupers!

RELATIVE THEOLOGY

Bottom line is this. Leopard tanks would not have been relative to Daniel or John, but they are relative to us today! God knew that so He put that in there like that.

That is true that the first interpretation of that prophecy might have been what you claim, but that would not have been relative to us today! Thus we can discard your reasoning that it is not for us.

But... for us to use that typology for us then all we have to do is look at the countries typlified by the before mentioned beasts. Relative to us today we see the four countries, Usa, Germany, Russia and etc.

Very plain and I hope I explained it clearly and distinctly.

As far as martyrering the messanger, you are the one who went up against Baster! I did not attack him, you did!

[afp1996]

Originally Posted by Monterrey

No, you are wrong!

Let me explain it one more time for the slow pickerupers!

RELATIVE THEOLOGY

Bottom line is this. Leopard tanks would not have been relative to Daniel or John, but they are relative to us today! God knew that so He put that in there like that.

That is true that the first interpretation of that prophecy might have been what you claim, but that would not have been relative to us today! Thus we can discard your reasoning that it is not for us.

But... for us to use that typology for us then all we have to do is look at the countries typlified by the before mentioned beasts. Relative to us today we see the four countries, Usa, Germany, Russia and etc.

Very plain and I hope I explained it clearly and distinctly.

As far as martyrering the messanger, you are the one who went up against Baster! I did not attack him, you did!

I do not believe relative theology is biblical in this sence. I use the Holy Spirit, Grammor, Context, and the Authors Intent to come to my conclusions.

Call it whatever you'd like to call it. That interpretation does not hold water in light of the scripture. Period. Now....

What determines a "Coming of the Lord"? What are the elements that make up a "Coming of the Lord"?

[Monterrey]

Originally Posted by afp1996

I do not believe relative theology is biblical in this sence. I use the Holy Spirit, Grammor, Context, and the Authors Intent to come to my conclusions.

Call it whatever you'd like to call it. That interpretation does not hold water in light of the scripture. Period. Now....

What determines a "Coming of the Lord"? What are the elements that make up a "Coming of the Lord"?

Is a coming of the Lord what you would call a rapture? Or...?

Jesus has yet to come for you and I. We are still here. You are not in eternity.

Is this whats you mean?

[afp1996]

Originally Posted by Monterrey

Is a coming of the Lord what you would call a rapture? Or...?

Jesus has yet to come for you and I. We are still here. You are not in eternity.

Is this whats you mean?

My question is not a hard one.

What does the Bible state a Coming of the Lord is? Once we know what a Coming of the Lord is, then we can better understand what a Coming of the Lord is not. This will aid us in understand whether or not the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD is or is not a Coming of the Lord.

So, what would you say, according to the Bible, is a Coming of the Lord?

[Monterrey]

The beast system is coming.

Rev 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

This beast is relative to a system put in place, a system to rule over people.

Rome was this system in place at the time of the first church, yet today we have that same system in place trying to work in this world. Relative to us.

Rome was the beast that the woman was riding there, today there are many examples of this romanic beast.

It is all about the control of people. Rome was about power and control.

We see this system in churches, governments and societies.

The roman papal government control is in churches. Many of the church organizations use the same beast system. It is like a pyramid with a POPE at the top.

It is all relative my friend.

[Monterrey]

Originally Posted by afp1996

My question is not a hard one.

What does the Bible state a Coming of the Lord is? Once we know what a Coming of the Lord is, then we can better understand what a Coming of the Lord is not. This will aid us in understand whether or not the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD is or is not a Coming of the Lord.

So, what would you say, according to the Bible, is a Coming of the Lord?

I am not for sure whats you are asking. There might be many comings of the Lord. It is all relative.

70 AD is not even mentioned in the Bible, why would you use that and try to say it is biblical?

That is not even relative to the conversation.

[Nitehawk013]

Relative was the word of the day on MOnt's "Word-a-day" calendar. LOL.

[Monterrey]

Originally Posted by Nitehawk013

Relative was the word of the day on MOnt's "Word-a-day" calendar. LOL.

Just think, if you were from Mississippi or Kentucky relative would have a different meaning.

[afp1996]

Originally Posted by Monterrey

I am not for sure whats you are asking. There might be many comings of the Lord. It is all relative.

70 AD is not even mentioned in the Bible, why would you use that and try to say it is biblical?

That is not even relative to the conversation.

You are going to be fun to play in the sand box with my friend.

Ok. The Bible was written before 70AD. So, yes, 70 AD was not in the Bible.

[afp1996]

Originally Posted by Monterrey

The beast system is coming.

Rev 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

This beast is relative to a system put in place, a system to rule over people.

Rome was this system in place at the time of the first church, yet today we have that same system in place trying to work in this world. Relative to us.

Rome was the beast that the woman was riding there, today there are many examples of this romanic beast.

It is all about the control of people. Rome was about power and control.

We see this system in churches, governments and societies.

The roman papal government control is in churches. Many of the church organizations use the same beast system. It is like a pyramid with a POPE at the top.

It is all relative my friend.

Ok, since it is all relative, what about 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, the wonderful Counseler, the Might God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.

This too is a prophecy scripture. Just whose birth is this relative to in our modern day disregarding all previous generations and fulfillments?