The absurdity and heresy of Preterism

[Dino246]

Not "may have been" - he was the first to postulate such ideas; ideas which find no support in Scripture.

So why do people make reference to his ideas? Why not simply refer to the core ideas of preterism, which do have support in Scripture?

What about the Mark of the Beast? The Beast had not even yet arisen, for the ECFs all taught the the Restrainer was the Pagan Roman Empire which prevented it from arising.

The writings of the ECF's are not Scripture, period. Ultimately, their comments have no greater weight than those of any modern writer.

 

[Phoneman-777]

The second decree is not merely a reinstatement. It is an embellishment and reactionary to the request of Nehemiah. The accusation was that they were building a wall Ezra 4:13, which the first decree arguably did not allow. Nehemiah was allowed to return with letters in hand to accomplish this task.

Yes of course the math doesn't work. It isn't supposed to work it will never work. There are only 69 weeks of years between 445BC and the triumphal entry. There is no mathematical prophecy pointing to 70 A.D.

You said the building of the wall in Jerusalem wasn't permitted until Artaxerxes' 445 B.C. reinstatement of his original 457 B.C. decree that was suspended - what you call his "second" decree. Let's see if that's accurate:

1) In Ezra 7:6 KJV, we read that the king granted Ezra "all his request" and a wall was certainly among that request. How do we know? In Ezra 9:9 KJV, Ezra praises God for moving the heart of the king of Persia to "give us a wall in Judah and Jerusalem". Here we see clear evidence Artaxerxes had a wall in mind from the beginning. What caught him by surprise was not their building the wall, but that the people were known to be so rebellious.

2) Unlike the decrees of Cyrus and Darius which were limited temple restoration, Artaxerxes' comprehensive decree fits Gabriel's prediction (Daniel 9:26 KJV) Israel would work "to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem" by virtue of its provisions for reestablishing the priesthood, educational system, constabulary, and justice system. Judgments always took place in the gates (which were fastened to walls) of ancient cities, including Jerusalem.

3) Every city in antiquity had a wall around it for defense - Artaxerxes had plenty of walled cities under his dominion. He knew a wall in Jerusalem was every bit as necessary for them as any other city so no mention of it in the decree was necessary.

 

[cv5]

Hey Ahwa, hope your having a great day. I just wanted to ask again because you've never answered my question on this devastating topic that destroys the whole idea of a future rapture categorically. In my mind.

Okay now that we are on this side of the cross and we've been told that scripture is closed, that if anyone comes with a new message that disagrees with what was given to them then, then that person should be damned to hell forever. So I believe scripture is closed and we've been given all we need for salvation. Most people I've talked to agree with me on this 100%, at least until after I make this case anyway. So no more new scripture on the way, yet God's temple is no longer on earth, nor has He given any instructions for us to build one. So when is God going to command us to build this temple? Also if He comes speaking to us directly, giving us commands, does this mean scripture is opened again? Did it ever close truly? Do we now need to take a more careful look at Joseph Smith, Mohammed, maybe L. Ron Hubbard or Shirley MacLaine? How would we know these messages weren't from God too if He's still speaking?

I know most just think if we just build it in the same spot then that makes it God's temple. I disagree, in both previous temples God commands His temple built, and gives very specific instructions on how to do so. Now I'm supposed to just believe that a bunch of men deciding to make a building will result in "God's temple"? I don't. So until you, or anyone else can explain to me how the most rational, most logical, perfect God of order, abandones all these perfect plans and just leaves the building of "His Temple" to the decision and discretion of us? Please clear this up for me. Or ignore it like you always do and go on teaching the same weak argument that makes you feel safe because that's how you were taught to understand it, NOT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT ACTUALLY SAYS. No matter how strongly you feel it does. I don't expect a real answer, really just like adding this to these conversations so others can think about it from another angle and see how little sense a 3rd temple even makes.

One last thought, just a small but very telling fact about our views. This view allows me to declare Jesus Christ King of this world, now, today, in power and glory ruling with an iron rod until all enemies are made a footstool for His feet. Right now, today, incharge of the world, Jesus is King!!!! You have to say something more like, "He's King, but just not yet". Right? So is Jesus King right now? I love that I can say that now, even all the way to a horribly painful grave, I would declare Jesus King. Now, with no "but" at all. I like that, you have to add a disclaimer that I don't. I could be mistaken, but I don't think the early church fathers added that "but". Just saying.

Jimbone...
-Dan 9:25-26 (a-b)
-then the "gap" Dan 9:26 (c-f), coincident with Luke 21:12-24, which also coincides with this present Church age
-then YET FUTURE Dan 9:27, which is the very start of the 70th week, coincident with the revealing of the man of sin 2nd Thess 2, coincident with the opening of the first seal of Rev 6.

There are many many more supporting Scriptures, certainly. But it's all there, it all concatenates, it all fits perfectly........and the math works to boot.

Yes the futurist pre-trib rapture, premillennial position is boilerplate doctrine. Nothing else even comes close.

 

[cv5]

You said the building of the wall in Jerusalem wasn't permitted until Artaxerxes' 445 B.C. reinstatement of his original 457 B.C. decree that was suspended - what you call his "second" decree. Let's see if that's accurate:

1) In Ezra 7:6 KJV, we read that the king granted Ezra "all his request" and a wall was certainly among that request. How do we know? In Ezra 9:9 KJV, Ezra praises God for moving the heart of the king of Persia to "give us a wall in Judah and Jerusalem". Here we see clear evidence Artaxerxes had a wall in mind from the beginning. What caught him by surprise was not their building the wall, but that the people were known to be so rebellious.

2) Unlike the decrees of Cyrus and Darius which were limited temple restoration, Artaxerxes' comprehensive decree fits Gabriel's prediction (Daniel 9:26 KJV) Israel would work "to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem" by virtue of its provisions for reestablishing the priesthood, educational system, constabulary, and justice system. Judgments always took place in the gates (which were fastened to walls) of ancient cities, including Jerusalem.

3) Every city in antiquity had a wall around it for defense - Artaxerxes had plenty of walled cities under his dominion. Artaxerxes knew Jerusalem needed a wall for defense like any other city so no mention of it in the decree was necessary.

Nice try but nope. Read the actual text of the decree itself Ez 7:11. And don't read into it Ezras wishful thinking. That earlier decree is limited to the Temple, reestablishing proper worship, and the priestly services.

By the way I knew you were gonna come up with that lol.

Now compare with Nehemiah ch 2 thru 7:1. Practically everything in those chapters is about building the wall the wall the wall the wall the wall......
Furthermore the second decree was intentional in that is allowed for Jerusalem to defend itself from the hostile entities that had been plaguing it........undoubtedly a component of the pleading made by Nehemiah, spurring the king into a further action on behalf of Israel.

 

[Phoneman-777]

457BC + 490 = 33AD........But you must subtract 7 years to accomodate the 360 Prophetical year.
Which leaves you with 26AD. So the math does not work any which way you slice it.

No, it's 34 A.D., because there is no "year zero". Jesus was crucified in 31 A.D. and the Gospel went to the Gentiles in 34 A.D. right after Stephen was stoned which marked the official rejection of Jesus by the literal bloodstained hands of Stephen's Jewish leadership.

However calculating 69 weeks of years, Starting at 445 BC, using 360 day prophetical years calculates perfectly. Precisely to the very day.

Any alternative theory is kaput. Frankly I do not understand why the nonstop debate and error.
Both mathematically and prophetically 69 weeks of years is absolutely correct.

Perfectly? Counting from 445 puts the 490 years at 46 A.D. What happened in that year? Nothing.

 

[Phoneman-777]

I have just reviewed Ezra 8:11, the first decree of Artaxerxes. This decree is a series of orders pertaining to the return of the Israelites, the rebuilding of the Temple and the reconstitution of the priest and the sacrifices.

There is no mention whatsoever of the city or the wall being rebuilt.

No, the first decree was given in Ezra 7:7 KJV in the "7th year reign of Artaxerxes" which has been proven extraBiblically to be 457 B.C.

 

[cv5]

No, it's 34 A.D., because there is no "year zero". Jesus was crucified in 31 A.D. and the Gospel went to the Gentiles in 34 A.D. right after Stephen was stoned which marked the official rejection of Jesus by the literal bloodstained hands of Stephen's Jewish leadership.
Perfectly? Counting from 445 puts the 490 years at 39 A.D. What happened in that year? Nothing.

Correct....no year zero.
And stop misquoting me. I have ALWAYS stated that there are ONLY 69 weeks of years, 483 prophetical years, 173,880 days, from 445BC to the triumphal entry. Pretty sneaky of you to try and slip that in there.

Which mathematically works out to absolute perfection.......Which nobody can deny not you not anyone.

 

[cv5]

No, the first decree was given in Ezra 7:7 KJV in the "7th year reign of Artaxerxes" which has been proven extraBiblically to be 457 B.C.

Typo. I clearly meant Ezra 7:11 as earlier indicated. But I'm sure you get my point.

 

[Phoneman-777]

Nice try but nope. Read the actual text of the decree itself Ez 7:11. And don't read into it Ezras wishful thinking. That earlier decree is limited to the Temple, reestablishing proper worship, and the priestly services.

By the way I knew you were gonna come up with that lol.

Now compare with Nehemiah ch 2 thru 7:1. Practically everything in those chapters is about building the wall the wall the wall the wall the wall......
Furthermore the second decree was intentional in that is allowed for Jerusalem to defend itself from the hostile entities that had been plaguing it........undoubtedly a component of the pleading made by Nehemiah, spurring the king into a further action on behalf of Israel.

What "wishful thinking"? The man plainly says God moved the heart of the king to give them a wall, but you're going to ignore that because it's not explicitly mentioned in the decree? He gave Ezra all that he desired, so did Ezra desire a wall or no? What a stupid prophet he'd have been to not want a wall.

Nehemiah was all about the wall wall wall wall because the suspension had stopped it's construction - which proves my position: why would the people started building a wall if there was no word from the king?

 

[Phoneman-777]

Correct....no year zero.
And stop misquoting me. I have ALWAYS stated that there are ONLY 69 weeks of years, 483 prophetical years, 173,880 days, from 445BC to the triumphal entry. Pretty sneaky of you to try and slip that in there.

Which mathematically works out to absolute perfection.......Which nobody can deny not you not anyone.

Not sure where I misquoted you, but OK, 445 - 483 = 39 A.D. What happened in that year? Nothing.

 

[cv5]

You said the building of the wall in Jerusalem wasn't permitted until Artaxerxes' 445 B.C. reinstatement of his original 457 B.C. decree that was suspended - what you call his "second" decree. Let's see if that's accurate:

1) In Ezra 7:6 KJV, we read that the king granted Ezra "all his request" and a wall was certainly among that request. How do we know? In Ezra 9:9 KJV, Ezra praises God for moving the heart of the king of Persia to "give us a wall in Judah and Jerusalem". Here we see clear evidence Artaxerxes had a wall in mind from the beginning. What caught him by surprise was not their building the wall, but that the people were known to be so rebellious.

2) Unlike the decrees of Cyrus and Darius which were limited temple restoration, Artaxerxes' comprehensive decree fits Gabriel's prediction (Daniel 9:26 KJV) Israel would work "to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem" by virtue of its provisions for reestablishing the priesthood, educational system, constabulary, and justice system. Judgments always took place in the gates (which were fastened to walls) of ancient cities, including Jerusalem.

3) Every city in antiquity had a wall around it for defense - Artaxerxes had plenty of walled cities under his dominion. He knew a wall in Jerusalem was every bit as necessary for them as any other city so no mention of it in the decree was necessary.

Oh.......so walls are never broken through and broken down in all of history? Absolutely ridiculous. The crisis at hand was that Jerusalem was defenseless, Because of the lack of a contiguous wall.

The wall which was rebuilt between Nehemiah ch 2 thru 7.

You don't rebuild the walls that have not been first broken down. Your arguments are becoming more preposterous by the moment.

 

[Phoneman-777]

So why do people make reference to his ideas? Why not simply refer to the core ideas of preterism, which do have support in Scripture?

Because it's important to point out that those who lived closest to the writers of Scripture did not teach that before...the ECFs were all Historicist and agreed with me.

The writings of the ECF's are not Scripture, period. Ultimately, their comments have no greater weight than those of any modern writer.

True. Which is why we only need the Bible to overthrow Jesuit ideas and establish Protestant Historicism.

 

[cv5]

What "wishful thinking"? The man plainly says God moved the heart of the king to give them a wall, but you're going to ignore that because it's not explicitly mentioned in the decree? He gave Ezra all that he desired, so did Ezra desire a wall or no? What a stupid prophet he'd have been to not want a wall.

Nehemiah was all about the wall wall wall wall because the suspension had stopped it's construction - which proves my position: why would the people started building a wall if there was no word from the king?

Wrong. Read Daniel chapter 9:25 over and over and over again. The starting point is the commandment the decree of the king to rebuild the city, the walls and the street. The Temple is not even mentioned in those passages.

Oh one other thing.....Ezra did not actually build the wall. Did he?

 

[Phoneman-777]

Typo. I clearly meant Ezra 7:11 as earlier indicated. But I'm sure you get my point.

I don't think you read my post earlier. The decree in Ezra 7 provided for the establishment of the temple, priesthood, education of the people, constabulary, and justice system...where were cases heard by the judges in ancient times? At the gates...those wooden and metal things that swung in the holes in the walls.

 

[Dino246]

Because it's important to point out that those who lived closest to the writers of Scripture did not teach that before...the ECFs were all Historicist and agreed with me.
True. Which is why we only need the Bible to overthrow Jesuit ideas and establish Protestant Historicism.

Please define "historicism" as you have used it in these two instances.

 

[Phoneman-777]

Oh.......so walls are never broken through and broken down in all of history? Absolutely ridiculous. The crisis at hand was that Jerusalem was defenseless, Because of the lack of a contiguous wall.

The wall which was rebuilt between Nehemiah ch 2 thru 7.

You don't rebuild the walls that have not been first broken down. Your arguments are becoming more preposterous by the moment.

The debate is not whether a wall stood or not...it is whether or not Artaxerxes intended a wall to be included at the time of his 457 B.C. decree, which would completely undermine your assertion that no permission was given to build a wall until the reinstatement of that 457 B.C. decree in 445-444 B.C.

I think I, as well as Ezra himself, has well shown you that God had already moved the heart of the king to permit the building of the wall (Ezra 9:9 KJV) long before 445-444 B.C., but if you choose to ignore Scripture so as to cling to 445-444 B.C., that's your business. The rest of us can safely affix 457 B.C. as the "decree to restore and to build Jerusalem".

 

[Phoneman-777]

Wrong. Read Daniel chapter 9:25 over and over and over again. The starting point is the commandment the decree of the king to rebuild the city, the walls and the street. The Temple is not even mentioned in those passages.

Oh one other thing.....Ezra did not actually build the wall. Did he?

No, the decree refers to "restore and rebuild Jerusalem", of which Ezra 9:9 KJV says Artaxerxes had already consented to give permission including the wall...long before 445-444 B.C.

 

[cv5]

I don't think you read my post earlier. The decree in Ezra 7 provided for the establishment of the temple, priesthood, education of the people, constabulary, and justice system...where were cases heard by the judges in ancient times? At the gates...those wooden and metal things that swung in the holes in the walls.

You've got four insurmountable problems:

-The first decree speaks nothing to building the streets the city or the walls
-There is no indication whatsoever that Ezra rebuilt the wall
-The second decree speaks directly to rebuilding the wall......and the gates
-Neh 2:13 "and viewed the walls of Jerusalem, which were broken down, and the gates thereof were consumed with fire"

I hope this post puts an end to your delusions.

Are you actually reading (and living) your Bible? Or are you living in a fantasy world of your own imagination?
Because according to your posts it is the latter.

 

[cv5]

No, the decree refers to "restore and rebuild Jerusalem", of which Ezra 9:9 KJV says Artaxerxes had already consented to give permission including the wall...long before 445-444 B.C.

Go ahead and read over and over again Nehemiah 2:13. You lose.....

And consequently and undoubtedly, the 445 BCE decree is unquestionably the start of Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy.....

 

[Phoneman-777]

Please define "historicism" as you have used it in these two instances.

You're not familiar with Protestant Historicism? It was exclusively preached and taught in every non-Catholic church since before the time of Luther up until just about 100 years ago, when Jesuit Futurism began to creep into Protestantism...and now in the last 30 years: Jesuit Preterism.