Revelation: An Early Preterist Date VS A Late Preterist Date

[Paul E. Michael]

Gentry and Russel.

Here, yet again, you show that you have not carefully read anything I have written, seeing as you can say something as asinine as that I "believe those men":

you believe those men

That's a silly thing for you to say, seeing as those men, like you, are trying to sell the claim that Revelation was written before A.D. 70, which I'm not buying. What part of my having told you that the clashing claims of those two preterists cancel each other out prompted you to say that I "believe those men"?

You know, despite your claim that they are promiment, I have never heard of them before.

How is it my problem that you are ignorant of these preterist authors? Obviously it is not my problem.

---

You "have the standard" that unless Peter and Paul wrote in a gospel or epistle that they were beheaded or crucified under Nero, you give yourself the freedom not to believe they died.

Of course I have the freedom to not believe preterists' extra-Biblical claims that Peter/Paul were crucified/beheaded by Nero. Do you mean to tell me I do not? All you're doing is begging me to take as axiomatic, things you choose to take as axiomatic. Obviously that's not going to do you any good.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Please then stop requiring what I say to be in the Bible if this is not a requirement you demand of what you say and think.

In other words, you are begging me to stop not believing the stuff you say, even though you expect me to believe it just because you say it. LOL

 

[Paul E. Michael]

"when you try to sell your claim" is accusing me of "selling" something which is a mild character attack.

Well, obviously the truth hurts you enough to trigger you to call it a "character attack".

"you've not carefully read nor reflected upon what I've written in this thread, so that's no surprise" which is an untrue

On the contrary, it's true. Though I get that you are motivated to contradict it.

personal attack

Again, the truth hurts you so as to trigger you to call it a "personal attack".

instead of defending your position.

Feel free to state exactly what you are referring to by your phrase, "your position".

There is more but it takes some work and you started out early with the personal attacks.

Quote the earliest thing I wrote in this thread that you are calling a "personal attack".

It is a way of your dealing with being unable to defend your position.

Like I said, state whatever it is you are referring to by your phrase, "your position".

Mostly it starts with "you are" and attaches an insulting adjective or claim.

You are clearly not good at tolerating dissent from the things you say, as you cannot resist the urge to lash out and call it "insulting", "personal attacks", "character attack", and "ad hominem attacks".

Your ad hominem attacks show that He is not speaking to you.

Your sanctimonious hypocrisy in that remark shows that I am right to not regard you as any sort of scholar or magnanimous person.

---

I never met anyone who discredited anything not written in the Bible

So you believe everything not written in the Bible?

let us stick to the Bible.

Well, you've made it clear that you're not about sticking to the Bible. But I know that what you mean by that bit of sanctimony is "let us stick to what I say the Bible says."

 

[Dorothy Mae]

In other words, you are begging me to stop not believing the stuff you say, even though you expect me to believe it just because you say it. LOL

What? There is a serious disconnect here. I think you do not like the fact that I can best you in presenting reasons for a position. So you sink to the ad hominem response. This is jeering, which is lower than most similar responses.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Well, obviously the truth hurts you enough to trigger you to call it a "character attack".

The is an ad hominem attack. Now you think I am experiencing emotional pain when presented with your view. Personal attack. I told you it would not be long in waiting for an ad hominem from you.

On the contrary, it's true. Though I get that you are motivated to contradict it.

Again, the truth hurts you so as to trigger you to call it a "personal attack".

Feel free to state exactly what you are referring to by your phrase, "your position".

Quote the earliest thing I wrote in this thread that you are calling a "personal attack".

Like I said, state whatever it is you are referring to by your phrase, "your position".

You are clearly not good at tolerating dissent from the things you say, as you cannot resist the urge to lash out and call it "insulting", "personal attacks", "character attack", and "ad hominem attacks".

Your sanctimonious hypocrisy in that remark shows that I am right to not regard you as any sort of scholar or magnanimous person.

---

Nothing but personal ad hominem attacks. Apparently you are not aware that you do this and cannot identify this. I have encountered this blindness commonly in those who engage in this sort of response.

So you believe everything not written in the Bible?

Huh? I am, apparently, a relatively well educated woman and so know A LOT that the Bible does not cover. Do you need examples? I have an education in medical science so I know a whole lot that is not in the Bible but is very useful for health and well-being.

Well, you've made it clear that you're not about sticking to the Bible. But I know that what you mean by that bit of sanctimony is "let us stick to what I say the Bible says."

I guess that one was really difficult for you, not standing on what Gandry or Russel say but consider what the Bible says. Let us move on......you are too willing to attack personally rather than offer rational responses.

Adieu

 

[Paul E. Michael]

The is an ad hominem attack. Now you think I am experiencing emotional pain when presented with your view. Personal attack. I told you it would not be long in waiting for an ad hominem from you.

Nothing but personal ad hominem attacks. Apparently you are not aware that you do this and cannot identify this. I have encountered this blindness commonly in those who engage in this sort of response.

Huh? I am, apparently, a relatively well educated woman and so know A LOT that the Bible does not cover. Do you need examples? I have an education in medical science so I know a whole lot that is not in the Bible but is very useful for health and well-being.

I guess that one was really difficult for you, not standing on what Gandry or Russel say but consider what the Bible says. Let us move on......you are too willing to attack personally rather than offer rational responses.

Adieu

Dorothy Mae 📽

I'm enjoying watching your self-projection. It's hilarious.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I can best you in presenting reasons for a position.

You have presented abundant reasons for the position that Dorothy Mae is not someone who desires to be taken seriously by rationally-thinking people.

 

[Endtimesdeut32]

Yes it is. Either Revelation 13 is a prediction of events future to the time it was written, or it is not.

To say that Revelation 13 is God telling someone who has been suffering persecution that his persecutor has been persecuting him is ridiculous, but that's what you're trying to make of Revelation 13.

I don't have time or real interest to delve into this topic real deeply, but, in the surface reading of rev 13, I don't believe that the tone of the writing is strictly predictive. They are not always yes or no questions. John could be given words that were intended to confirm the experiences in which they were beginning to live as those same experiences which Daniel had prophecied in ch 7.

Saying that he saw things in a vision isn't demanding that they are future, but could be presently occurring associations with Daniels (and others) prophecies.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

The only difficulty with the “both soon and later” is Jesus said plainly it won’t happen ever again.