Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

robycop3

A look at "this generation"...

Recommended Posts

On 3/27/2019 at 4:08 PM, Invicta said:

So you have three encylopaedias, but I have the bible.  Jesus said all those things would happen before this generation passed away. 

I don't disagree that the eschatological events have not happened.  The eschatological events begin at verse 36.

  Well, I have Bibles also! And the fact is, those events prophesied by Jesus have NOT occurred yet, but as Jesus' words are always 100% correct, they WILL happen. Jesus' words aren't wrong; your guess of what He meant by "this generation" is incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, robycop3 said:

  God definitely stresses a certain doctrine to one person, while stressing a nother doctrine to another person. hence, we have one Christian writer making books about the Holy trinity, while another writes about baptism. As  for OPPOSING doctrines, I don't see any.

  the line of popes is not the "beast". Scripture makes it plain that he will be only one man. However, we can't rule out the possibility that a pope or some other RC high official might be the "beast from the earth", that is, the antichrist's sidekick, the false prophet.

All the kingdoms in Daniel 2 were dynasties, so it is reasonable to suppose that he that replaced the Roman empire is also a dynasty. 

 The pope is the successor of Caesar,  He bears Caesar's title of Pont Max.  The title of Julius Caesar.  

Edited by Invicta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Invicta said:

All the kingdoms in Daniel 2 were dynasties, so it is reasonable to suppose that he that replaced the Roman empire is also a dynasty. 

 The pope is the successor of Caesar,  He bears Caesar's title of Pont Max.  The title of Julius Caesar.  

 That's simply a man-made title. The late wrestler King Kong Bundy, though bearing the name of a giant gorilla, was still a man.

  The line of popes is not the antichrist.  Believing that is as silly as believing Nero was the antichrist. What pope had a miracle-working false prophet as his sidekick,  and was cast alive into the lake of fire?

Edited by robycop3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2019 at 11:14 AM, robycop3 said:

(As for "lemme" or any other textese/slang I choose to use, I shall do so as I choose. I don't tell anyone else how to "talk", nor make fun of their spelling, and I'm not gonna pay any attention to anyone trying to "correct" me.  And everyone makes typos if they use a keyboard a lot, as I do, & I don't belittle them for it unless they do me. Fair enough?)

Well, that's all fine, but I don't, can't, and won't take you seriously as long as you use such inferior grammar. Others may, but I would think anyone claiming to represent a PERFECT God would be more mindful and respectful in their representation of him.

Carry on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I's fixin' to write a'buncha stuffs bouts the bible's stuff, but I 'cided not to...but at least my spellin looks neat'n stuff 'n shows I'm hip to this new gen'ration. I knows what the Bible sez...cause I've been all studyin' 'n such...standin' up ginst false doctrin'n stuff for the last 40 years...even though I don't get the basics of diff'nt bibles teach diff'nt things'n stuff. 'least I believe stuff, 'n my audience wants to hear it.

'n stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

I's fixin' to write a'buncha stuffs bouts the bible's stuff, but I 'cided not to...but at least my spellin looks neat'n stuff 'n shows I'm hip to this new gen'ration. I knows what the Bible sez...cause I've been all studyin' 'n such...standin' up ginst false doctrin'n stuff for the last 40 years...even though I don't get the basics of diff'nt bibles teach diff'nt things'n stuff. 'least I believe stuff, 'n my audience wants to hear it.

'n stuff.

SMILE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2019 at 2:32 PM, DaveW said:

Were also taught to make up "history" to suit yourself, because you have a proven track record of it on this site, as has been pointed out to you many times previously.

Many doctrines you say originated in the 1800's are clearly seen presented in documents back to the second and third century, including your version of Preterism.

Answer this will you: If you position is so far removed from preterism, how is it that you are so often and regularly identified by your teaching as a preterist?

And by so many different people over the years?

Call it what you will, but it is regularly identified as preterism.

Because those who say it are thick.

Edited by Invicta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Invicta said:

Because those who say it are thick.

"This generation" grammatically means one particular generation alive when Jesus spoke. That generation would be adults roughly 20 to 40 who would have Jesus' disciples and most of the people in the crowds following Jesus. 

Someone here offered that there are people still alive from 1948.  Grammatically, "generation" can't be applied to the generation alive in 1948 because they were actually a number of generations alive in 1948.  "The generation of 1948" is a bit like saying the corner of a circle, it makes no sense.  Such arguments are also damage control for failed doctrine, given that no one claimed prior to 1988 that "this generation" meant people people born in 1948.

Invicta, I saw that you hold to a late date of Revelation.  How do you square that with whatever reasons you're being "accused" of being a preterist?

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They know full well I am not a preterist.

I have futurist friends and preterist friends.  The latter would not class me as a preterist.  I believe the pope is antiichrist as did the reformers and more importantly the prereformers like the Waldedses, the Lollards and the Hussiters, and the Hugueots in France to name of few. Many of those died proclaiming the gospel.  I think preterists and futurists are on the same side in playing down their persecutor.

I stand on the side of the martyrs through the ages, as well as those of today, very few of which don't make the daily news.

Edited by Invicta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Shoostie said:

Invicta, I saw that you hold to a late date of Revelation.  How do you square that with whatever reasons you're being "accused" of being a preterist?

DaveW accused me of making up history about the early writers, but when I suggested he read some, he said he didn't need to he had the bible.  So it seems he doesn't know the history only repeats what others say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2019 at 6:38 AM, DaveW said:

Invicta is NOT Baptist at all, and has shown no real knowledge even of genuine Baptist history, let alone genuine Baptist doctrine.

And he constantly accuses people here of being brethren, usually based around this discussion, even though he has been shown clearly from the Bible that his position is not biblical, and historically that his position is not Baptist.

He reinterprets terms so that he can be offended when people call him a preterist, but people constantly "mistake" what he says for preterism...... maybe because what he says is so closely aligned to preterism that it is almost impossible to tell the difference.

And he changes history to suit his arguments,  which I and others have shown here before.

 

On 3/28/2019 at 5:31 AM, Invicta said:

When I was at school , I was taught never to go with the majority because the majority is usually wrong.

This is such a stupid statement.........

Do you drive on the wrong side of the road because the majority must be wrong?

Do you believe 1 + 1 doesn't equal 2 because the majority must be wrong.

Something is wrong because it is wrong regardless of how many people believe not because of how many people believe it......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Invicta said:

DaveW accused me of making up history about the early writers, but when I suggested he read some, he said he didn't need to he had the bible.  So it seems he doesn't know the history only repeats what others say.

Umm - that's  a lie.......

I have plenty of historical material.

In fact I have listed people who prove you make up history, and referenced information that proves you make up history.

What I have said is that it doesn't matter as much what people believe historically - what matters is the Bible - and you neo-preterist position is not biblical and never has been. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DaveW said:

you neo-preterist

That just shows your ignorance.  I am an historicist and that teaching predates preterism and futurism by centuries.   The earliest writers taught an orderly historical transition.  They understood the scriptures partly from the scriptures and partly from what was handed down from the apostles.  They taught that the let and hindrance in "2 Thess. 2 was the Roman Empire and the emperor, after these were removed, they said, the empire would be divided between ten kings,  This happened.  Then they said the antichrist would arise. They were spot on with that. They just had the prophecy.  We have the history.  But you don't believe the history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, DaveW said:

Invicta is NOT Baptist at all, and has shown no real knowledge even of genuine Baptist history, let alone genuine Baptist doctrine.

What Baptist history do I not have real knowledge of?  and what genuine Baptist doctrine do I not understand?  I would be interested to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Invicta said:

That just shows your ignorance.  I am an historicist and that teaching predates preterism and futurism by centuries.   The earliest writers taught an orderly historical transition.  They understood the scriptures partly from the scriptures and partly from what was handed down from the apostles.  They taught that the let and hindrance in "2 Thess. 2 was the Roman Empire and the emperor, after these were removed, they said, the empire would be divided between ten kings,  This happened.  Then they said the antichrist would arise. They were spot on with that. They just had the prophecy.  We have the history.  But you don't believe the history.

If a plethora of people independently identify you as a preterist, then maybe it is not I that is ignorant but you....

Maybe, just maybe, your position and description of that position is far closer to the preterist that you would like to believe. 

And as for your LIE about your position predating others.... I have quoted historical information (proving your previous statement a lie), that shows that both these other positions were discussed as early as the third century. That only gives you two centuries to play with and there are no writers discussing these issues prior to this that still exist.

Then of course there is the FACT that much of the book of Revelation HAS NOT BEEN SEEN IN HISTORY unless you seriously degrade the events.

You are a liar, and that has been proven time and time again, in your false representation of history, in your false representation of your position, in your claim to be Baptist, and in your false claims about me.....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...