The absurdity and heresy of Preterism

So you are clearly telling me I need something outside scripture to understand scripture? Can you not see a problem with this? Do you not think that's a red flag?

Okay, so you like the patterns huh? Who does God tell us will inherit the earth? So you say He comes down and takes us, the righteous by His grace and by His blood, and leaves the wicked on earth to face judgement? Wait, that's not Gods pattern. Let's stay right in the same scripture, right after where I left off in Mat. 24:36-40 when He tells us

36 “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. 37 For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, 39 and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left.

Who was taken off the world in the flood? The righteous or the wicked? No matter how you try to spin the water lifting the arc into the "air" like us in the rapture, but the FACT is the wicked were removed and the righteous stayed on earth. Why do you flip this to keep your "3D model like thinking" to make it fit the pre trib view?

I think its a title = but not totally sure
but anyhow lots of kings have the same name
Henry 1,2, ......8 etc

I am not sure about the sequence and dates....in Josephus it is more like 479 and 466 or 461 BC.....
but Josephus may not be particularly accurate either.....he would be using secondary sources for that history
and his dates and chronology seem odd as well

I find it hard to reconcile the chaos at Jerusalem with a post Mordecai picture

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.

I got 99 problems, but Jesuit Futurist eschatology ain't one.
You've got a serious problem explaining how the street and wall wasn't included in the package deal when:
1) Artaxerxes granted Ezra "all his request, according to the hand of the LORD his God upon him" - you are essentially arguing a street and wall was not "according to the hand of the Lord" which was upon Ezra - utterly ridiculous.
2) the wall was green-lighted by the king long before the 445-444 B.C. decree. (Ezra 9:9 KJV)
You need to understand that it matters not whether Ezra built the wall, but that the green light for the wall was already given before the 445/444 B.C. decree, which blows your Jesuit argument completely out of the water.
There is no "second decree" ---- again, it was a reinstatement of the original decree with additional mention of a wall WHICH WAS ALREADY GREENLIGHTED LONG BEFORE 445/444 B.C.
It is you who are seduced by ridiculous Jesuit ideas, when you have been shown that the starting date of 457 B.C. perfectly lines up everything in the prophecy, which for some reason you Jesuit Futurists seem to keep forgetting was a Numerically Specific Time Prophecy of 490 years, NOT 490 PLUS 2,000+ YEARS AND COUNTING.

You're gonna need a bigger shoehorn and an audience of Scientologist to sell that rubbish.

Please define "historicism" as YOU have used it.

Blindly adhering to the errors of the reformers is foolhardy at best. Replacement theology being the most grievous of all their heresies.

I already stated I'm a Protestant Historicist in the succession of the Reformers.

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data" (S.H.) and the fact that you need a Protestant Historicist data sheet proves you've drawn conclusions without having all the facts.

I am not terribly au fait with "Left Behind". Surely they should have been happy that the publishing company was adding ballast to their doctrines?

This doesn't seem exactly right either... because in 4:7,8,11,12-16, some bad dudes write a letter "to Artaxerxes the king" telling him [likely embellishing (i.e. LYING)] "that the Jews which came up from thee to us are come unto Jerusalem building the rebellious and the bad city, and have set up the walls thereof, and joined the foundations." Then the letter goes on to say, "Let it now be known to the king that if that city is rebuilt and its walls are restored, they will not pay tribute, duty, or toll, and the royal treasury will suffer. Now because we are in the service of the palace and it is not fitting for us to allow the king to be dishonored, we have sent to inform the king that a search should be made of the record books of your fathers. In these books you will discover and verify that the city is a rebellious city, harmful to kings and provinces, inciting sedition from ancient times. That is why this city was destroyed. We advise the king that if this city is rebuilt and its walls are restored, you will have no dominion west of the Euphrates."

The the king responds to that letter by saying (in part), "The letter you sent us has been translated and read in my presence. I issued a decree, and a search was conducted. It was discovered that this city has revolted against kings from ancient times, engaging in rebellion and sedition. And mighty kings have ruled over Jerusalem and exercised authority over the whole region west of the Euphrates; and tribute, duty, and toll were paid to them.
Now, therefore, issue an order for these men to stop, so that this city will not be rebuilt until I so order. See that you do not neglect this matter. Why allow this threat to increase and the royal interests to suffer?"

And then the last verse of this chapter says, "Then ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia." See that? There was no evidence that the city was actually being rebuilt (only "bad guys spreading falsehoods, in order to get them in trouble and prevent what it was they *were* accomplishing re: "the work of the house of God" at that point); and the whole context is worded in such a way that it sounds to me as though the king was being *informed* of such a thing re: "the city" (even tho it wasn't actually the case that "the city" was being rebuilt... only "the house of God")... and that the king says, "[no more build] UNTIL a commandment be given by me"... which is what we see at the later time. Does that make sense? (I'm kinda tired atm )

IOW, the letter would not need to start out (as it does) by saying anything like it is informing the king that they are rebuilding the city, etc, but it does start out that way... If he had decreed that, then just start off the letter by saying, "Uh, mr. king, that was dumb what you just did... and here's why..." but it doesn't in any way acknowledge that he was the initiator... and the last verse only gives evidence on "what we already know" *WAS* decreed (re: "the house of the Lord") up to that point... (work on IT is what "ceased" at that point, per v.24, clearly stated as fact).

There is a difference.

Ezra gave the command to rebuild the temple. Not the city

Nehemiah was given the command to rebuild the city.

Nope nope aaaaand........nope. Did I mention that your math is rubbish and doesn't work?

That's the stupidest thing I've read all day. You really need to study the common logical fallacies.

I'm beginning to think you're incapable of defining the term, and that you simply throw it out to sound knowledgeable.

*Sigh*
Ezra 9:9 KJV proves they already had a green light to build the wall long before the 445/444 B.C. reinstatement of Artaxerxes' original decree which was suspended due to the false allegations of Israel's enemies.

Daniel 9:25 KJV is to be calculated from the decree in 457 B.C., not 445/444 B.C.

What's stupid about it?

Ezra 9: 9For we were bondmen; yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage, but hath extended mercy unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia, to give us a reviving, to set up the house of our God, and to repair the desolationsthereof, and to give us a wall in Judah and in Jerusalem nothing about restoration of the city the restoration of the HOUSE and it’s desolation and the walls is bit the city also, your about 12 years to early in the timing of the end of the 69th week.

This part: "the fact that you need a Protestant Historicist data sheet proves you've drawn conclusions without having all the facts."

Firstly, I don't "need a Protestant Historicist data sheet"; and secondly, even if I did, it would not prove anything of the sort.

I'm almost certain you've never objectively investigated Protestant Historicism, have already made up your mind about it, and will stubbornly oppose all evidence supporting it, no matter how compelling.

Yawn. You'd rather make unfounded accusations than providing the requested information so we can get on with discussing.

If you know what Historicism is all about, then what prevents you from accepting it?