Did Jesus decieve people about his second-coming?

[Ark~Magic]

Fortigurn, you've been refuted:

Is this referring to MY article? It sounds very little like it -

> He offers no justification for selecting Vespasian as
> the 11th horn in the series

I offer a huge justification for making Vespasian the 11th horn. Just
whining that I don't provide it isn't an answer....

> Vespasian did not 'persecute the saints' for time,
> times and half a time ('Holding' acknowledges that the
> saints here are the Christians), and the suggestion
> 'Holding' offers to get around this is palpably weak.

It's too bad he/she never actually explains why it is weak. So I'll
just say
his response is "dead" and then he/she can go outside and play.

> * They all appear on the beast together (I realise
> that the 7 heads in Revelation do also, but the 7
> heads are specifically referred to as sequential,
> whereas the horns are not)

What a silly statement. Any set of items that is in a row is in some
sort of
interpretable sequence. He just blew his own argument by admitting that
in
his apparent scheme he plays by the same rules.

> * Wherever Daniel refers to horns appearing on a
> beast, the horns are always contemporaneous unless
> specified otherwise (other horns are always described
> as arriving after the former horns)

And who made up that rule? It's not in the text. It's nowhere in
history.
It's just a begged question. At least I have the ancient understanding
of
present orientation (http://www.tektonics.org/esch/timpret.html) on my
side
to say why the horns can all be there at the same time but still
represent a
consecutive order.

> * A horn on a beast represents a power - a number of
> horns on a beast represents a divided power, so this
> is Rome divided, Rome after 476 AD

Oh I see. He's one of those people out to gig Catholics.

> So can you refute it?

What's to refute? He/she said nothing of substance to refute my huge
article. They just made up a rule and ran with it.

God bless,

JP

[Fortigurn]

Fortigurn, you've been refuted:

Well no, all we have here is the usual bluster by 'Holding'.

Is this referring to MY article? It sounds very little like it -

> He offers no justification for selecting Vespasian as
> the 11th horn in the series

I offer a huge justification for making Vespasian the 11th horn. Just
whining that I don't provide it isn't an answer....

No he doesn't offer 'huge' justification for it. He presented what he considers to be a 'huge justification' for identifying the actions of the little horn to be the actions of Vespasian. That does not actually address the issue of selecting Vespasian as the 11th horn in the first place.

I note also that he has completely truncated my original sentence here, taking it out of context and ignoring the argument I made along with it. This is typical 'Holding' behaviour.

Here's my original sentence:

He offers no justification for selecting Vespasian as the 11th horn in the series he arbitrarily counts the triumverate as an imperial rule, acknowledging that Suetonius, from whom he borrows the rest of his list, doesn't even mention the triumverate in his list of imperial rulers)

That does not constitute 'justification' for selecting Vespasian as the 11th horn in the series. It is completely arbitrary, as I pointed out, and it also contradicts the list of Suetonius, as 'Holding' himself acknowledges.

> Vespasian did not 'persecute the saints' for time,
> times and half a time ('Holding' acknowledges that the
> saints here are the Christians), and the suggestion
> 'Holding' offers to get around this is palpably weak.

It's too bad he/she never actually explains why it is weak. So I'll just say
his response is "dead" and then he/she can go outside and play.

It is palpably weak to suggest that the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile of the Jews constitutes three and a half years of persecution of Christians.

> * They all appear on the beast together (I realise
> that the 7 heads in Revelation do also, but the 7
> heads are specifically referred to as sequential,
> whereas the horns are not)

What a silly statement. Any set of items that is in a row is in some sort of interpretable sequence. He just blew his own argument by admitting that
in his apparent scheme he plays by the same rules.

He didn't read what I wrote. The 10 horns appear together, they do not appear 'in a row', or as a sequence. I have pointed out that the seven heads are to be understood as sequential not because they appear together, but because they are specifically identified as sequential (he didn't actually address my argument).

> * Wherever Daniel refers to horns appearing on a
> beast, the horns are always contemporaneous unless
> specified otherwise (other horns are always described
> as arriving after the former horns)

And who made up that rule? It's not in the text. It's nowhere in
history. It's just a begged question.

It isn't a begged question, it is demonstrable from the text. Look for yourself at all the other instances of horns in Daniel (check Daniel 7 and . It doesn't take long to verity this fact.

At least I have the ancient understanding
of present orientation (http://www.tektonics.org/esch/timpret.html) on my
side to say why the horns can all be there at the same time but still
represent a consecutive order.

He is wasting time here, because I am not arguing that the fact that the horns all appear together means they cannot represent a consecutive order. In fact I agreed that it is possible for them to do so, and gave an example from Revelation. This just shows he's not reading what I wrote (typical 'Holding', I'm afraid).

> * A horn on a beast represents a power - a number of
> horns on a beast represents a divided power, so this
> is Rome divided, Rome after 476 AD

Oh I see. He's one of those people out to gig Catholics.

Ok, so no reply to this point at all.

> So can you refute it?

What's to refute? He/she said nothing of substance to refute my huge
article. They just made up a rule and ran with it.

In other words, he doesn't want to address what I wrote. That is typical of 'Holding'. As you can see from the eschatology debate to which I referred, it is also typical of Warren.

So, do you want to discuss Praeterism yourself?

[bob2010]

(And I should've known better than to be looking at a FULL Preterist site.)

the preachy writing with the all caps, bold, and stuff should have given it away.

[Fortigurn]

(And I should've known better than to be looking at a FULL Preterist site.)

the preachy writing with the all caps, bold, and stuff should have given it away.

Oh that's so true. That and the scaremongering.

[Fortigurn]

As it happens, I recognise that site. I've debated both Donald Hochner and Chris Camillo for months. Both of them refer to that site, and Donald has contributed some of the articles.

[Ark~Magic]

J.P. Holding replies to Cult Warrior Fortigurn:

Oh, Fortigurn. He and his twin brother Evangelion are classic idiots.
I
have dealt with both of them before.

His "reply" is more of the same as before. He just calls my arguments
names
("palpably weak") and does not actually answer them. He did not answer
my
point that any set of items can be taken as sequential. Other instances
of
horns in Daniel does not make for a rule, especially given what I said
about
present orientation -- as well as, I'll add, the collectivist
understanding
of persons within nations.

The reason for his inability to do more is that he has no idea what
things
like present orientation and collectivism mean. He (and his brother)
just
read texts in English and announce their opinions, sometimes (if you
are
lucky) using a source written in the 1800s as a verification.

Tell Forty that if he wants to come play on TheologyWeb with me on
this,
I'll be glad to humiliate him as I did his brother on TheologyOnline,
where
his brother's best responses were, "Is not, is not, is not, so there!"

God bless,

JP

[Fortigurn]

J.P. Holding replies to Cult Warrior Fortigurn:

I note that he still hasn't addressed my objections, and he still hasn't actually read my post (the example I gave about the horns was from Revelation, not Daniel).

I note also that he still doesn't realise that I made the point about 'present orientation' and 'collectivism' myself, in my original post, even before he raised it (another example of him simply not reading what people write).

He did not answer my point that any set of items can be taken as sequential.

Not only did I answer it, I pointed out that in my original post I had said this myself.

Tell Forty that if he wants to come play on TheologyWeb with me on
this, I'll be glad to humiliate him...

The problem is that this is all you ever get from 'Holding' - insults and no answers.

He displays the least Christlike behaviour of any 'Christian' apologist I have ever seen. He singlehandedly gives atheists and skeptics ammunition against Christianity. And he doesn't even care.

[puritan lad]

when he says 'this generation' he is talking about the generation that see's all of those signs of the tribulation.

Says Who? He was talking to His first century Apostles.

Even if I grant you this, what will you do with the following verses?

Matt. 10:23 - "Truly I say to you, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes.“

Matt. 16:28 - "Truly I say to you, there are some who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“

Matt. 26:64 - "You [the high priest] will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven."

Rom. 13:11-12 - "You know what hour it is, how it is full time now for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed; the night is far gone, the day is at hand."

1 Cor. 7:29-31 - "Brethren, the appointed time has grown very short; from now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the form of this world is passing away."

1 Cor. 10:11 - "On [us] the ends of the ages have come."

Phil. 4:5 - "The Lord is at hand."

James 5:8-9 - "The coming of the Lord is at hand. ... Behold, the Judge is standing at the door."

1 Pet. 4:7 - "The end of all things is at hand."

1 Jn. 2:18 - "It is the last hour ... we know that it is the last hour."