Mount of Olives Jerusalem cracks

[brianb]

Zechariah 14:4 says (literally) that the mountain will sit when the Lord stands on it. So did Jesus return and no one noticed? Or when he comes, is he going to have to take credit for someone else's cracks?

There is no fault line that runs directly through the Mount of Olives. It's a mile to the south, through the Mount of Corruption, an adjacent peak on that same ridge.

And God doesn't need a fault line to split the Mount of Olives.

 

[biscuit1953]

Why do you assign evil motives to people who are only trying to correct you?

Why don't you post your net worth on here so someone with less money than you can accuse you of being crooked and your Reformed theology nothing more than propaganda?

 

[Ransom]

Why don't you post your net worth on here so someone with less money than your can accuse you of being crooked and your Reformed theology nothing more than propaganda?

Why don't you falsely accuse me of full preterism again?

You're just angry because we've seen enough of your modus operandi to suss out your pattern. You accuse anyone disagreeing with your prophecy or Dispensationalist posts of heresy or bad faith.

If I don't post Tim LaHaye's net worth, it's because it's irrelevant to the point: your Dispen-sensationalist prophecy posts are consistently wrong. You're accusing me of someone else's faults. You just never get it right, do you?

 

[biscuit1953]

Why don't you falsely accuse me of full preterism again?

You're just angry because we've seen enough of your modus operandi to suss out your pattern. You accuse anyone disagreeing with your prophecy or Dispensationalist posts of heresy or bad faith.

If I don't post Tim LaHaye's net worth, it's because it's irrelevant to the point: your Dispen-sensationalist prophecy posts are consistently wrong. You're accusing me of someone else's faults. You just never get it right, do you?

Your view it seems rejects progressive revelation which is basically what Dispensationalism teaches. There is a dispensing of truth from Adam up to the New Testament where people lived in periods of time (dispensations) where their instructions were changed or abolished for those living before them. It is dangerous to start making prophecy nothing more than a metaphor instead of taking the text in the context and believing what it says.

You say I accuse you of believing in “full preterism.” I have come to learn there are nuances in Reformed theology when it comes to prophecy and it is hard to distinguish sometimes in the different schools of thought. The same applies to Dispensationalism. I reject the school that believes in different ways of salvation in the Old and New Testament. I also reject the hyper-dispensationalist idea that the General Epistles have no doctrinal application to the Church and that no one should be water baptized. Since you brought it up, why don’t you explain what a “half-preterist” believes. What is the difference in plain words?

 

[Ransom]

Your view it seems rejects progressive revelation which is basically what Dispensationalism teaches.

Wrong.

It is dangerous to start making prophecy nothing more than a metaphor instead of taking the text in the context and believing what it says.

I said no such thing.

You say I accuse you of believing in “full preterism.”

You, only a month and a half ago:

I know we won't agree but how can we agree when you believe Christ came back in 70 A.D.

So, yes. I do say you accused me of believing in full preterism.

I have come to learn there are nuances in Reformed theology when it comes to prophecy and it is hard to distinguish sometimes in the different schools of thought.

Obviously, you don't even try.

I reject the school that believes in different ways of salvation in the Old and New Testament. I also reject the hyper-dispensationalist idea that the General Epistles have no doctrinal application to the Church and that no one should be water baptized.

Didn't even mention them.

Since you brought it up, why don’t you explain what a “half-preterist” believes. What is the difference in plain words?

I didn't bring up "half-preterism." If you're going to make up beliefs for the rest of us, you can make up your own explanations too. Just don't get mad when we don't play along.

 

[Ekklesian]

What does it mean to move mountains?

And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. - Matthew 17:20

 

[biscuit1953]

Wrong.



I said no such thing.



You, only a month and a half ago:



So, yes. I do say you accused me of believing in full preterism.



Obviously, you don't even try.



Didn't even mention them.



I didn't bring up "half-preterism." If you're going to make up beliefs for the rest of us, you can make up your own explanations too. Just don't get mad when we don't play along.

A month and a half ago I knew nothing about "full preterism" and wasn't familiar with the different views of Reformed theology in eschatology. You obviously know very little about Dispensationalism also. I won't argue the point though.

 

[Ransom]

You obviously know very little about Dispensationalism also. I won't argue the point though.

Wise. You'd find yourself wrong, again.