Question About Open Theism

[Right Divider]

Hebrews tells us Christ has fulfilled Yom Kippur.

Another unsupported claim...

The Day of Atonement comes AFTER the trumpets.

The first four are SPRING feasts and the last three are FALL feasts.

If the first four feasts were executed IN ORDER, why does your theory have the last three OUT of order?

Your theory is way out of wack.

 

[Idolater]

Another unsupported claim...

The Day of Atonement comes AFTER the trumpets.

The first four are SPRING feasts and the last three are FALL feasts.

If the first four feasts were executed IN ORDER, why does your theory have the last three OUT of order?

idk. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe Hebrews was written after all seven of them were already fulfilled, and they did go in order. All I've been saying is that, since Hebrews claims Yom Kippur is fulfilled, then maybe Trumpets and Booths are too.

Your theory is way out of wack.

Possibly. That's what we're all here to find out, no? How good our theories are? How well we're thinking about things? Whether we're on to the truth, or nah? That's why I'm here anyway.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Hebrews confirms Yom Kippur is fulfilled. If that were not the case I wouldn't be floating the idea that perhaps all seven Leviticus 23 feasts, festivals, holidays, etc., have already been fulfilled. I guess it all depends on Hebrews saying or claiming that Yom Kippur is fulfilled. One thing's for sure, it's the right book of the Bible to answer the question, because it was literally written to them.

Chapter verse, please.

You have a very dogmatic view of Revelation. When I've set out the case that Mr. 666 is Nero I didn't get your response to that. We literally have the coins with his name and image on them, made of gold, all of those are mentioned in Revelation, about Mr. 666.



Except unless Nero is Mr. 666. I basically agree with you, unless Nero is Mr. 666. And I find the argument that it's Nero persuasive. It even explains why some copies of Revelation manuscripts have the Number of the Beast as 616 instead of 666, because Nero's name in Greek as opposed to Hebrew, numerologically sums to 616, while in the Hebrew, Caesar Nero or Kaesar Neron in the Greek I think, sums to 666. It explains the exception and the rule, so that's a very persuasive argument to me.

Nero COULD HAVE BEEN the Antichrist, had circumstances not changed.

You can't just ignore the change in circumstances in order to save your belief.

Israel rejected her Messiah, and was cut off, and God turned to working with the Gentiles directly. This is what Scripture teaches, and what Paul explicitly states.

The fact that there's almost no chance that Revelation was written before AD 90, and the fact that Paul was sent to the Gentiles, and the fact that the feasts were to be performed in order, as well as the fact that Christ has not come to reign for 1000 years, blows your theory out of the water completely.

Or what, you think Nero is the only person who will ever live whose name can't be added up to 666 or 616?

 

[Idolater]

Chapter verse, please.



Nero COULD HAVE BEEN the Antichrist, had circumstances not changed.

You can't just ignore the change in circumstances in order to save your belief.

Israel rejected her Messiah, and was cut off, and God turned to working with the Gentiles directly. This is what Scripture teaches, and what Paul explicitly states.

The fact that there's almost no chance that Revelation was written before AD 90, and the fact that Paul was sent to the Gentiles, and the fact that the feasts were to be performed in order, as well as the fact that Christ has not come to reign for 1000 years, blows your theory out of the water completely.

Or what, you think Nero is the only person who will ever live whose name can't be added up to 666 or 616?

My only point is that it could be Nero. ofc it could not be Nero, that's not in dispute. And if it is Nero, then that's good evidence Revelation was written before AD 70. And again that's my point. It could not be Nero, but it also could be Nero, and I find the argument that it is Nero persuasive, because it explains both the rule (666) and the exception (616) equally. I haven't heard any other theory that explains them both equally; that's why I find the argument it's Nero persuasive.

 

[Right Divider]

idk. Maybe it doesn't.

Please be more CLEAR about what you're talking about.

Maybe Hebrews was written after all seven of them were already fulfilled, and they did go in order.

The seven feasts are extremely important to God's dealings with His people... and yet you think that a couple of the fulfillment's of these extremely important feasts were just left out of the scripture. That's a pretty ridiculous idea. Although, this does fit with the RCC lack of respect for scripture.

All I've been saying is that, since Hebrews claims Yom Kippur is fulfilled, then maybe Trumpets and Booths are too.

Again, a CLAIM without any SUPPORT.

QUOTE IT!

 

[Idolater]

Please be more CLEAR about what you're talking about.

OK I'll TRY to be more CLEAR for you RD.

The seven feasts are extremely important to God's dealings with His people... and yet you think that a couple of the fulfillment's of these extremely important feasts were just left out of the scripture.

Because they happened after the Scripture, or, for whatever reason. Again the whole point here is that this is in the context of Sola Scriptura, and if it's NOT in Scripture, then the prima facie presupposition is that it did NOT happen. So that's WHY I've mentioned this NOTION.

That's a pretty ridiculous idea. Although, this does fit with the RCC lack of respect for scripture.

As a Catholic the Scripture and logical propositions are both 100% solid truth. I'm pretty sure we're the same on that mark.

Again, a CLAIM without any SUPPORT.

QUOTE IT!

This isn't how civil discussions go RD. lol.

 

[Right Divider]

Because they happened after the Scripture, or, for whatever reason.

That is a very lame "reason".

Again the whole point here is that this is in the context of Sola Scriptura, and if it's NOT in Scripture, then the prima facie presupposition is that it did NOT happen.

Wow.

As a Catholic the Scripture and logical propositions are both 100% solid truth.

That is hilarious.

This isn't how civil discussions go RD. lol.

You continue to make an unsupported claim. That is NOT how any "discussion" goes.

If you are going to make a claim about what is in scripture... SHOW IT!

 

[Idolater]

That is a very lame "reason".


Wow.

That is hilarious.

You continue to make an unsupported claim. That is NOT how any "discussion" goes.

If you are going to make a claim about what is in scripture... SHOW IT!

Show that Hebrews confirms Yom Kippur is fulfilled in Christ? OK.

 

[JudgeRightly]

My only point is that it could be Nero. ofc it could not be Nero, that's not in dispute. And if it is Nero, then that's good evidence Revelation was written before AD 70. And again that's my point. It could not be Nero, but it also could be Nero, and I find the argument that it is Nero persuasive, because it explains both the rule (666) and the exception (616) equally. I haven't heard any other theory that explains them both equally; that's why I find the argument it's Nero persuasive.

You've made two three posts now without answering this:

Hebrews confirms Yom Kippur is fulfilled. If that were not the case I wouldn't be floating the idea that perhaps all seven Leviticus 23 feasts, festivals, holidays, etc., have already been fulfilled. I guess it all depends on Hebrews saying or claiming that Yom Kippur is fulfilled. One thing's for sure, it's the right book of the Bible to answer the question, because it was literally written to them.

Chapter verse, please.

Please post the chapter and verse(s) in Hebrews which says that the Day of Atonement has been fulfilled.

Nero was antichrist.

He could have been the Antichrist, except circumstances changed that precluded the end times from occurring, which precludes ANYONE from being the Antichrist.

Now, please post chapter and verse from Hebrews that supports your claim that the Day of Atonement has been fulfilled.

 

[Idolater]

You've made two three posts now without answering this:



Please post the chapter and verse(s) in Hebrews which says that the Day of Atonement has been fulfilled.

I'm working on it.

Nero was antichrist.

He could have been the Antichrist, except circumstances changed that precluded the end times from occurring, which precludes ANYONE from being the Antichrist.

That is based on your own view of Revelation being the truth, which is presupposition. Could be, that another view is right.

Now, please post chapter and verse from Hebrews that supports your claim that the Day of Atonement has been fulfilled.

I'm working on it.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I'm working on it.

So you made a claim without being ready to back up said claim?

That's real smart... /s

That is based on your own view of Revelation being the truth, which is presupposition. Could be, that another view is right.

I'm literally just paraphrasing scripture, Idolater.

Of course it's true.

Therefore your position is false, because it goes against what scripture says.

I'm working on it.

Should have had it ready when you made the claim. Now you just look like you're floundering.

Post the chapter and verse that says that the Day of Atonement has already been fulfilled, or shut up until you can.

 

[Idolater]

So you made a claim without being ready to back up said claim?

That's real smart... /s



I'm literally just paraphrasing scripture, Idolater.

That's literally what everybody says they do too. It's extremely dogmatic. You could be wrong.

Of course it's true.

Therefore your position is false, because it goes against what scripture says.

Again, reasonable people disagree with you, this is bluster and dogmatic, and is definitely not how civil discourse occurs.

Should have had it ready when you made the claim. Now you just look like you're floundering.

Could be.

Post the chapter and verse that says that the Day of Atonement has already been fulfilled, or shut up until you can.

I'm working on it.

 

[JudgeRightly]

That's literally what everybody says they do too. It's extremely dogmatic. You could be wrong.



Again, reasonable people disagree with you, this is bluster and dogmatic, and is definitely not how civil discourse occurs.

The difference is that I, like a few other on this forum, can back up what I say when challenged, with the context of scripture that we are referencing.

So far, you cannot. Have not.

Could be.

Are. No question.

I'm working on it.

Your next post should include it then. Don't post another thing until you have your evidence in-hand.

Or, admit you cannot.

 

[Clete]

I believe in math and I believe in engineering. Engineers tell me I can trust the calculator to do math for me. To then now believe in the calculator like I believe in math and engineering is a bit tenuous, I get that. But the calculator is never going to be the standard if there's a conflict between the math or engineering textbook and the calculator, we're not going to correct the texts because the calculator said so. That's something the JWs do, and the Lutherans, who just deleted seven books from the texts, because the calculator said to. Or at least, it said it was OK to delete them. I mean something like that.

So any calculator that's going to have you redacting texts is definitely bonkers. You should either replace it or at least try to fix it until it tells you accurately what the texts say.

All of that is MY argument, not yours!

It is because prophesy has to do with Israel and not the Body of Christ that we know that preterism is false. We KNOW it is false. It isn't a theory, it isn't a hypothesis, it isn't an opinion. If preterism is true then Paul is a false apostle and practically every doctrine that is uniquely Christian is falsified!

WHY?

That's the question you should have asked! But you're either too proud or too stupid to understand the need to ask such a simple question!

The reason why, or at least a chief reason, is the fact that Paul AND ONLY PAUL, explicitly teaches that Israel (i.e. as a nation - not individual believing Jews) has been cut off! There's no way he wrote that BEFORE the destruction of Israel in 70 AD! And how are there going to be any prophecies fulfilled that concern Israel if Israel's prophesied program has been stopped (i.e. put on hold - temporarily)? There can't be! And so either Paul is telling the truth or preterism might be true. It cannot be both!

 

[Right Divider]

Your next post should include it then. Don't post another thing until you have your evidence in-hand.

Or, admit you cannot.