Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 04/26/2026 4:39:54 AM PDT by cuz1961
He Became a Preterist... Then an Atheist... Then This Happened.
RT 1 h 2 m
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
“...preterism theology is a rot of “ did God REALLY say ?””
While you pretend to believe you are some giant spiritual intellect.
As Michael Heiser explained, all systems cheat and ultimately fail.
It is not your freaking little eschatological beliefs that saves you, in case you don’t know.
Preterism is a wholesale denial of prophetic scripture to fit a lying system. It’s a great system for liars though!
Faith in Jesus saves
Preterists follow a non biblical Jesus
eschatological understanding is a litmus test IMHO
Jesus said
John 13:19 - “Now I tell you before it comes, that when it does come to pass, you may believe that I am He.
Jesus Himself tells us the importance of prophecy !
So it’s not my f_&## little beliefs .
You’re disgust of prophecy is telling.
2Peter 1:19 - And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts;
2Pe 1:20 - knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation
2Pe 1:21 - for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
Prophecy is the proof of the gospel
The sharp end of the evangelical sword of the Word.
We are supposed to
2Timothy 2:15 - Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
1 Thessalonians 5:20 - Do not despise prophecies.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 - Test all things; hold fast what is good.
Your contempt is wrong.
I forgive your attack for calling the Word / Gospel
” your f____g little belief “
You are too stupid to communicate with.
Again, someone chimes in that is too stupid to communicate with.
I provide scripture to back myself
You don’t.
Who is the stupid one ?
I sorry I upset you.
Maybe you should pray about all this .
“I provide scripture to back myself”
Satan quoted scripture to back himself up, too. Anyone can string verses together.
You posted: “You’re disgust of prophecy is telling.”
Surely you meant “Your...” You can’t even use grammar.
And I said not a word about prophecy. Who is the stupid one?
Y’all sound like Job’s friends.
I’ll debate you any time any place. I’ll even compare pedigrees if you want to.
“It is not your freaking little eschatological beliefs that saves you, in case you don’t know.”
“And I said not a word about prophecy”
,/
eschatological IS prophecy.
Satan always MISQUOTES scripture .
and twists it, with it, just like preterists do.
Telling you have given no scripture and up instead reach for “ Grammer”
Quit digging.
No, see, you are too stupid to be trying to be seen as being able to reason.
I said YOUR eschatological beliefs. You did not know that their is a difference between eschatology and your little eschatological beliefs?
Have I sinned when I disagree with you? I bet anything you believe I have. When Jesus said in Rev. 1:1 that these things will happen shortly, have I sinned if I believe that those events happened shortly?
When Jesus said — some standing here will not see death before they see his return — and I believe that, have I sinned?
Who said I was a preterist? You have not a clue what I believe.
Have I sinned when I disagree with you?
/
I haven’t seen you disagree with me
I have seen you call me stupid, a pretender, illeterate and belittled what I have posted and ignored the scripture with an open insinuation that I perverted scriptures just like Satan
I’m not sure, but I think you think you haven’t sinned against me, does that count ?
If you don’t believe in preterism why are you here defending it ?, or is this not so much defending it as it is attacking and maligning me and or dispensationalists?
And as far as you deversionary attempts to steer me into hypothetical straw man red herring verses,,,no thanks.
Gawd,,you a Democrat or a progressive,or just part of the hate cuz club hummblegunner told me about ;-)
Have you bought a coffee mug yet ?
Aww come on, lighten up francis and have a chuckle,cuz my last coffee cup joke was really funny !
When Jesus said — some standing here will not see death before they see his return — and I believe that, have I sinned?
.......
Certainly not for me to say whether that’s sin or not, but it may be a misunderstanding of the events that followed.
But some that were standing there did not see death till they saw Him Come in His Kingdom.
3 to be exact.
Peter,James and John.
They saw Him transfigured as He was in His Kingdom on the Mount . With Moses and Elijah.
So real was that event to those 3 who didn’t have to taste death to see that, that they sought to build three booths for Christ, Moses and Elijah.
The rest of His 12 Disciples, 9, had to taste death to see that.
So yes.
A small remnant didn’t see death before they saw Him Glorified as in His Kingdom.
3.
The rest had to die to see it.
Now what’s odd about Him saying that, then the Mount of Transfiguration event, is in Mathew and Mark, it was about 6 days later.
But in Luke. It was recorded at 8 days.
That’s a two day delay that didn’t literally happen.
So, what’s the Holy Spirit trying to convey to us who are reading about that event that happened about 2,000 years ago?
One could argue there could be a future event 2 days after Mathew/Mark’s version that has yet to occur.
And a small remnant could actually ascend alive to see Him in His Kingdom without ever having to taste death.
That’d be quite a scene for any standing there that are now given the command to come up.
Because while Peter, James and John were on the Mount with Christ, and Moses and Elijah, the rest of His followers were on the ground, fighting to cast a demon out of a child, and could not.
Jesus — Matthew 16:28 — “Truly I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
It was a vision in real time; he did not have to return, the conversation was about his upcoming crucifixion, it was not about his kingdom.
Anything beyond that has to be fitted in to arrange a belief that is not contained in the sense of the verse.
The disciples asked Jesus about John in John 21:21-22, where Peter inquires, “Lord, what about this man?” Jesus responds, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.”
Why would Jesus and Peter have that discussion, according to your understanding when Peter had already seen the vision.
Cuz, the video argues against full preterist ie everything is done. That is not Apostolic teaching.
It also errs in talking up dispensationalism m which again is not Apostolic, but was invented in the early 1800s.
The guest, Nigel, describes a “shipwreck of faith” that occurred because he was trying to solve the “puzzle” of the Bible entirely on his own.
This was due to sola scriptura.
Nigel moved from one private interpretation to another—7th Day Adventism, Calvinism, Preterism, and finally Atheism because he ignored what Christ taught His Apostles and what they handed down.
Nigel dismisses Amillennialism because of his sola scriptura error. Christ reigns sacramentally and mystically through the Church right now. The “mess” of the world is exactly what Jesus predicted: the wheat and the weeds growing together until the harvest (Matthew 13:30). By demanding a political, visible, earthly reign before the Second Coming, Nigel is falling into the same trap as the first-century Jewish groups who expected a military Messiah rather than a suffering Servant.
The “Israel-centric” system Richardson promotes is largely a 19th-century development that confuses the role of the Old Covenant with the fulfillment in the New.
While Full Preterism is indeed a departure from the historical Creeds, it’s ironic to call it a “lying system” while defending a Dispensationalist timeline that wasn’t even heard of until the 1830s.
You ought to gold to the actual “Primitive Church” view: a singular, visible Return of Christ to judge the living and the dead as the scriptures plainly state.
Jesus — Matthew 16:28 — “Truly I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
It was a vision in real time; he did not have to return, the conversation was about his upcoming crucifixion, it was not about his kingdom.
....
Was Moses and Elijah at His Crucifixion?
Again, every time in Mathew, Mark and Luke that Christ made that statement, the very next event was the Transfiguration on the Mount.
You don’t have to believe that.
But everyone can look in their own bibles and see it.
And some of those standing there didn’t have to die to see Moses and Elijah and Christ talking to them
That vision you apparently cling to was so real that those 3 that didn’t have to taste death to see Christ, Moses and Elijah on some Mount in Israel, they wanted to build a camp for the three.
And Moses and Elijah didn’t come back two days later, like it is recorded in Luke.
It’s also rather interesting that Luke has a two day delay and it actually speaks of Peter and them with him were heavy with sleep.
Mathew and Mark doesn’t say that.
Wonder why they’d be heavy with sleep if they got to experience it just two days earlier, as Mathew and Mark records.
Your argument is with scripture and the plain event that occurred in sequence after He made that statement.
But you aren’t going to be convinced, so you are free to believe as you choose.
I suspect some would be looking forward to not having to taste death before seeing Him in His Kingdom for the last 2 days.
All but three had to die to experience Christ talking with Moses and Elijah.
Cuz, you quoted 2 Peter 1:20 perfectly. It says prophecy is not for “private interpretation.”
And, for 1,800 years, the Church (East and West) never saw a “Secret Rapture” or a “two-stage” return of Christ in the scriptures. That idea was invented in the 1800s.
If we are to “heed the prophetic word,” should we heed the interpretation held by the Apostles and the early Church Fathers, or the “private interpretation” that emerged in the 19th century?
To follow Dispensationalism is, by definition, to follow a private, modern interpretation that was unknown to the “holy men of God” who actually wrote the New Testament.
“That vision you apparently cling to was so real that those 3 that didn’t have to taste death to see Christ, Moses and Elijah on some Mount in Israel...”
No, no, the topic was the second coming of Christ, not the vision. The vision was not the second coming. Jesus said that there would be some to see him return, and he especially pointed out John, which was after the vision occurred.
“All but three had to die to experience Christ talking with Moses and Elijah.”
No, no, the topic was the second return of Christ, not Christ talking with Moses and Elijah.
Jesus never mentioned about his return having to do with talking with Moses and Elijah.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.