Search results

I agree with them.

They say that themselves. :laughing:

It denies that any fulfillment has occurred.

The following were fulfilled with the advent of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection: Daniel 9 26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself 27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the...

Full preterism believes that all prophecy was fulfilled by circa 70 AD. Historicism does not. Dispensationalism denies any fulfillment of Matthew 24.

None of the Reformers was preterist. They were all historicist. The word you're trying to spell is "farce". You're welcome. :laughing:

No. They remained in Israel for a further 3.5 years after Calvary, taking the Gospel to Israel to round out the 70th week, after which they began to take the Gospel to the Gentiles as well. Acts 13:45-46. It was the Roman Army that brought Jerusalem and the Temple to desolation. Luke 21:20...

They were being warned to flee from Judaea. That included the city of Jerusalem which was in Judaea. The abomination of desolation compassing Jerusalem was the Roman armies. Why are you ignoring Luke 21:20,21?

The grammatical antecedent/referent of "it" is "all the land". Thus, they possessed all the land that the Lord gave them. The declaration is clear and plain.

Here's the narrative again. Joshua 21 43 And the Lord gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. 45 There failed not ought of any good thing which the Lord had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.

That came well after what Joshua described and declared. Joshua 21:43,45 was promised and fulfilled years before Israel's rebellion and disobedience.

How does that relate to Joshua 21:43,45?

Joshua 21:43,45 written in the past tense refers to prior promise and fulfillment, in the Old Covenant era.

Why do you continue to perpetuate this falsehood? Here is the elaboration on 2 Thes. 2:3 in the Wycliffe translation: 3 [That] No man deceive you in any manner. For but dissension come first [For no but departing away, or dissension, shall come first], and the man of sin be showed, the son of...

None of them believes Joshua.

Joshua 21 43 And the Lord gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. 45 There failed not ought of any good thing which the Lord had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass. Let us affirm that Joshua declares...

I don't understand. In post 201 you said "The disciples were speaking of the physical temple and city, but Christ did not answer them about the physical temple and city." If Christ did not answer them about the physical temple and city, how did He plainly declare that their literal physical...

They have disproven your doctrine by recognizing that Jesus predicts the literal destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in His Olivet discourse. Their doctrine is also founded on the Scriptures and Holy Spirit within.

There is not one accepted historical orthodox Christian exegete who subscribes to your interpretation. Not one.

The onus of proof does not rest upon doctrine which has been accepted in historical Christian orthodoxy for centuries. Rather, it lies upon any doctrine which attempts to deny and reject accepted historical Christian orthodoxy.