Zone1 the RCC is not from God

[surada]

Preterism! I Can’t Believe It​

Published on: July 19, 2016 by RR2 Category:Pretribulation Rapture, Todd Strandberg

One of my key reasons for believing in the pre-tribulation rapture is the fact all other views are always trying to undermine pre-tribulationism. Up until now, the most vocal group of opponents has been the post-trib and pre-wrath folks. I’m amazed to find preterism now on the attack, gaining ground by mostly converting pre-tribbers.
What is preterism? This theory argues that all Bible prophecy has been fulfilled; it states that nothing remains on the prophetic calendar. According to preterism, events like the rise of the Antichrist, the tribulation, the rapture, and the Day of the Lord all took place around 70 AD, the year the Romans invaded Jerusalem and destroyed the second Temple.
I just cannot understand how anyone can follow a preterist line of thinking in light of current world events. As in many cases, pride is one of the most common reasons people begin following doctrinal error. They believe that they are part of a special group that has discovered a hidden truth. Never mind the fact that millions of people have joined them in supporting their folly.
Up until now, I’ve largely been ignoring preterism because it seemed equivalent to the Flat Earth Society. Well, I can’t stand by and watch error run free, so it looks like I’m going to have to add preterism to the list of erroneous rapture views that I need to actively refute.
The heart of this error is based on Jesus’ statement that “this generation shall not pass, till all things be fulfilled” (Mat 24:34). It seems easy enough to claim Jesus was speaking about a first-century generation; however, logic ends there when one contemplates the fulfillment of all Bible prophecy.
In order to make 70 AD the magic year, we would have to delete dozens of prophecies that were never fulfilled. When was the Gospel preached to all the nations? When was the Mark of the Beast implemented? What about China’s 200-million-man army? When did 100-pound hailstones fall from the sky? And what date was it when the Euphrates River dried up?
The questions are endless. Why did we have the rebirth of Israel? If Jerusalem was forever removed from being the burdensome stone, why has it now returned to that status? When did all the Jews shout, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord,” as Jesus said they would?
After being so strict in their interpretation of Matthew 24:34, preterists then run roughshod over many clear statements of Scripture. They say that although the “resurrection” happened in 70 AD, the bodies of Christians were left in the grave.
Preterists take the dangerous step of spiritualizing all passages of Scripture that relate to the nation of Israel, and claim that these refer to the church, the “New Israel.” They teach that the “old earth,” which Scripture says will pass away, is the Old Covenant. The new heaven and new earth, they say, is the New Covenant, and the “elements,” which Scripture says will burn with fervent heat when this happens, are the “elements of the law.”
Preterism produces some bizarre explanations for why the world is still experiencing suffering and calamity.

The Mark of the beast was in the first century when they had to use Roman coin.

The Euphrates River dried up every August/September.

How many resurrections does Cyrus Scofield claim?

Roman catapults threw 100 pound boulders on Jerusalem.

 

[Cougarbear]

In Zechariah 14:2, the prophet predicts that “all the nations [will be gathered] to Jerusalem to fight against it.” This seems to have been fulfilled when the Roman legions and auxiliaries consisting of a vast array of ethnic groups from all over the known world attacked Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

Did Jesus come and part the Mt. of Olives and stand in the midst showing his wounds that he inflicted during his persecution of the crucifixion? No. So, the destruction of the Temple in 70AD is not the one Zechariah was speaking about. Oh ye of little faith.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Did Jesus come and part the Mt. of Olives and stand in the midst showing his wounds that he inflicted during his persecution of the crucifixion? No. So, the destruction of the Temple in 70AD is not the one Zechariah was speaking about. Oh ye of little faith.

I don't know why you talk to her she is not a Christian

 

[Mashmont]

Every single founder of a Protestant sect that I can think of wanted to change the rules so they could marry.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

I don't know why you talk to her she is not a Christian

Words on a messageboard are for all, not the person being directly responded to

 

[hadit]

Every single founder of a Protestant sect that I can think of wanted to change the rules so they could marry.

If they were priests in the Catholic church and were forbidden to marry, of course.

 

[ding]

Irrefutable questions that Roman Catholics and Orthodox can't answer

"Roman Catholic Examined" Home Page "Orthodox Church Examined" Home Page Return to "Canon of the Bible" Home Page

Questions for Catholics and Orthodox:

1. If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did Rome reject or question the inspiration of James and Hebrews , then later accept it? Conversely, Rome accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Catholic church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as "God's organization", why was she so wrong about something so simple? Should not the "Holy See" have known?
2. If the Orthodox church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did the eastern churches reject or question the inspiration of Revelation, then later accept it? Conversely, the east accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Orthodox church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as "God's organization", why was she so wrong about something so simple?
3. If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible in 397 AD, then why did many different versions of canons continue to circulate long afterwards?
4. If the Roman Catholic church gave us the Bible, why were the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) African councils, and not initiatives of Rome?
5. Since the synod Carthage in 393 AD stated, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon", does this not prove that Rome had no direct input or initiative in determining the canon.
6. Since the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) were under the control of what would later become the "orthodox church", how can the Roman Catholic church claim they determined the Canon? Would not such a claim be more naturally due the Eastern Orthodox church?
7. If the Catholic church, "by her own inherent God given power and authority" gave the world the Bible, why did she not get it right the first time? Why did the Roman Catholic church wait until 1546 AD in the Council of Trent, to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon?
8. Both Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox church leaders make the identical claim that they gave the world the Bible. If both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches make the same claim they gave the world the Bible, why do they have different books in each of their Bibles? Whose "church authority" shall we believe? Whose tradition is the one we should follow?
9. Provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about? Provide proof that this doctrinal tradition is apostolic in origin.
10. Provide a single example of where inspired apostolic "oral revelation" (tradition) differed from "written" (scripture)?
11. If you are not permitted to engage in private interpretation of the Bible, how do you know which "apostolic tradition" is correct between the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and the Watchtower churches, for all three teach the organization alone can interpret scripture correctly, to the exclusion of individual?
12. Why did God fail to provide an inspired and infallible list of Old Testament books to Israel? Why would God suddenly provide such a list only after Israel was destroyed in 70 AD?
13. How could the Jews know that books of Kings or Isaiah were Scripture?
14. If the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches both believes that the scripture: "the church is the pillar and foundation of truth" means the church is protected from error then: a. Why do they teach doctrine so different that they are not even in communion with each other? b. How do you account for the vast number of documented theological errors made by the pope and the church in general?
15. If the both the Orthodox and Catholic churches follow apostolic oral tradition exactly, how come they teach doctrine so different, that they are not even in communion with each other?
16. Both Tertullian and Jerome gave a list of oral traditions that were not found in the Bible. (Tertullian, The crown or De Corona, ch 3-4), (Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 8) Tertullian said of these practices that "without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone". These include, baptizing by immersion three times, giving the one baptized a "drink of milk and honey" then forbidding the person from taking a bath for a week, kneeling in Sunday mass was forbidden, and the sign of the cross was to be made on the forehead. Jerome, echoing Tertullian, said that these "observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law". Why does the Catholic church not immerse thrice and allow kneeling? Why do both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches not keep any of these traditions, with the exception of thrice immersion by the Orthodox? Why do Roman Catholic churches today have knelling rails in front of every pew? If the "apostolic tradition" was to make the sign of the cross on the forehead, why do both Orthodox and Catholic churches change this to the current practice of the sign on the chest and head? If extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed, then why don't the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches practice all of these things?

Practice from Tradition	Orthodox​	Catholic​
disown the devil before baptism​	​	​
thrice immersed​	​	​
Drink milk and honey after baptism​	​	​
don't bath for a week after baptism​	​	​
kneeling in worship is forbidden​	​	​
Sign of cross on forehead​	​	​
SCORE​ What percentage of the oral tradition in 200 AD do Orthodox and Catholic keep today? Worse still, the traditions of Orthodox and Catholic today contradict each other!	50%​	0%​
Tertullian, The crown or De Corona, ch 3-4 Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 8​

· As you can see from the chart above, neither Orthodox or Catholic keep the oral tradition of the 2nd century AD. Catholics keep none of it and Orthodox keep 50% of it! Worse still, both these church fight with protestants that you must use their oral tradition but the Orthodox and Catholic oral traditions DIFFER WITH EACH OTHER!!!

· IF ORAL TRADITION IS AUTHORTATIVE, HOW ARE OUTSIDERS SUPPOSED TO KNOW WHICH OF THESE TWO ORAL TRADITIONS IS CORRECT? The solution is that oral tradition is worthless and what we are left with is the BIBLE ALONE.

1. Why do Roman Catholics always use 2 Timothy 2:2; 3:14 as Bible proof that extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed through apostolic succession, when tradition says Timothy became the bishop of Ephesians, which through succession, is now part of the Greek Orthodox church headed out of Constantinople? If 2 Timothy 2:2 proves succession, doesn't this prove the Roman Catholic church is not part of that succession?
2. When you see the word tradition, why do you always assume it to be oral tradition rather than scripture tradition, when the Bible calls scripture tradition in 2 Thess 2:15, and Athanasius call scripture tradition: "the Apostolic tradition teaches in the words of blessed Peter, 'Forasmuch then as Christ suffered for us in the Flesh" Athanasius then quotes: 1 Peter 4:1; Titus 2:13; Heb 2:1 (Athanasius, To Adelphius, Letter 60, 6)?
3. The Church Fathers believed what Paul said in Eph 3:3-5, that the scripture could be understood by merely reading it. They indicated that the scriptures themselves were clear, so clear, they even criticized the heretics for getting it wrong. If those outside the church and common pew dwellers are unable to understand the Bible themselves as the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches teach, then why did the apostolic fathers expect the heretics to understand the Bible with their own human skills? (Tertullian, The Flesh of Christ, ch 20), (Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, 56), (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 1, 35), (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 7, 16)
4. If each individual possessing a copy of the scriptures is an essential pre-condition to sola Scriptura, then how do illiterate Catholic and Orthodox pew-dwellers know the Catholic and Orthodox Catechisms? If illiterate Catholics and Orthodox can have the Catechisms read to them, then why not the scripture?
5. If universal distribution of the Bible in every home is an essential pre-condition of sola Scriptura, then how could Catholic and Orthodox pew-dwellers know the message of the Pope before the time of modern instant live communication?
6. If the ability to read is an essential pre-condition to sola Scriptura, then how do illiterate Catholic and Orthodox pew-dwellers know the Catholic and Orthodox Catechisms? Would not the same logic apply to illiterates in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches? If Catholic and Orthodox laity can "know the truth" by hearing the catechism read to them, then why not illiterate Christians when they hear the Bible read?
7. If the ability to read is an essential pre-condition to sola Scriptura, then how do the illiterate Catholic and Orthodox commoner know for certain that the priest is faithfully teaching the dogma, canons and edicts of councils if they could not read the documents?
8. How do the Catholic and Orthodox commoners who can read, know for certain that the priest is faithfully teaching the dogma, canons and edicts of councils if they did not possess copies of such documents?
9. If the earliest, universal oral tradition clearly states that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews, why does the Roman Catholic church question this tradition to this day? (The Orthodox, are at least consistent in accepting this tradition, not that they are correct.)
10. Name one sure way or method, that a new believer in Christ, can know that the Orthodox church is the one true church. (The challenge: make sure this method cannot apply also to the Roman Catholic church.)
11. Name one sure way or method, that a new believer in Christ, can know that the Roman Catholic church is the one true church. (The challenge: make sure this method cannot apply also to the Orthodox church.)
12. If the personal illumination of the Holy Spirit upon each believer to understand the Bible is not a valid method of determining truth because of the many denominations that use this approach, then does it not follow that apostolic succession and oral church traditions are likewise invalid because the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are two denominations that use this method yet are divided on doctrine? Does this not prove both methods are wrong and a third method, one which we and the apostolic church practiced must be the correct method?
13. If sola Scriptura cannot be the correct method of determining truth because of the religious division among churches that claim to use sola Scriptura, then does this not also disqualify the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches method of using tradition, since they are divided against themselves?

the rcc is not Christian. Its a false gospel or works and traditions of men.

Technically.... everything is from God. Even your inane posts.

 

[Mashmont]

If they were priests in the Catholic church and were forbidden to marry, of course.

Exactly. How convenient all these men who founded new churches changed that one rule so they could do what they wanted. No Protestant founder made it tough on himself.
It reminds me of high school students who ditch class to protest. I would trust their sincerity if they protested on Saturday.

 

[hadit]

Exactly. How convenient all these men who founded new churches changed that one rule so they could do what they wanted. No Protestant founder made it tough on himself.
It reminds me of high school students who ditch class to protest. I would trust their sincerity if they protested on Saturday.

Rules can be changed because they are not Scripture. Thus, there is no Biblical authority requiring those in ministry to be celibate.

 

[ding]

Rules can be changed because they are not Scripture. Thus, there is no Biblical authority requiring those in ministry to be celibate.

Can logic be changed?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Every single founder of a Protestant sect that I can think of wanted to change the rules so they could marry.

be specific and link to any actual biblical versus that prohibits a priest from marrying

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

So much hot air about nothing at all.

 

[hadit]

Can logic be changed?

The logical process is pretty much set. The conclusions can be changed as new information is added to the process.

 

[hadit]

So much hot air about nothing at all.

And yet you felt compelled to comment. Interesting.

 

[ding]

The logical process is pretty much set. The conclusions can be changed as new information is added to the process.

Maybe look into normalization of deviance. You should also probably look into locus of control while you are at it. Also transactional analysis probably wouldn't hurt either.

 

[ding]

So much hot air about nothing at all.

Just another day at USMB.

 

[hadit]

Maybe look into normalization of deviance. You should also probably look into locus of control while you are at it. Also transactional analysis probably wouldn't hurt either.

Instead of trying to sound erudite, use common language to express yourself.

 

[ding]

Instead of trying to sound erudite, use common language to express yourself.

Because I'd rather talk down to you. Wisdom and knowledge is not given to just any jackanape.

 

[hadit]

Because I'd rather talk down to you. Wisdom and knowledge is not given to just any jackanape.

If you had some, that could be a worthwhile saying. Does everyone notice how he's trying to make the whole discussion about me instead of the subject? Just pointing that out.

 

[ding]

If you had some, that could be a worthwhile saying.

Normalization of deviance, locus of control and transactional analysis say I do.

I know them and their importance like the back of my hand.