The Great Tribulation: Battleground Earth

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Translation: I'm not going to lay it out, line upon line, book chapter and verse, why the Revelation strictly concerns a future end time scenario.

In other words they are ashamed to attempt to try to force any kind of historical 5 month event into the 5th trumpet. All they can do is attack.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

In other words they are ashamed to attempt to try to force any kind of historical 5 month event into the 5th trumpet. All they can do is attack.

Read my post Mike.

Man up bro, and do some heavy lifting Mr YouTubes and PalTalk.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

In other words they are ashamed to attempt to try to force any kind of historical 5 month event into the 5th trumpet. All they can do is attack.

You don't get it. You have teaching? Then you should be able to answer questions. You don't want to answer questions? Then there is no dialog.

I simply pointed out you and other futurists never lay out the foundation of why Revelation should be taken as all about some future end time scenario. The basis of why you approach prophecy the way you do. And you aren't interested in explaining that.

Which is cool. But this goofy "ashamed" business is stupid. I am not ashamed of anything I believe. And I have no problem laying out what I believe, and why. And I have done so, on this forum.

I guess you never noticed this thread I started specifically for anyone who had "Problems With Historicism"? http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ad.php?t=51227

In other threads I have explained why I believe what I believe. You, however, can only ask questions and never give any answers? Can't just provide the "Why" to what you believe?

I won't say you are "ashamed" of what you believe. I will however say you don't really know why you believe what you believe, and THAT'S why you won't explain the foundations of your doctrine.

[Esaias]

Furthermore, the fact you continuously try to classify me as a preterist, and what I believe as preterism, as if "historical" is just another word for "preterist", proves to me you simply have no clue about prophecy interpretation, its history and development, or the main differences between the main views, or even what main views exist.

So, it is little wonder you don't answer questions about prophecy.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Furthermore, the fact you continuously try to classify me as a preterist, and what I believe as preterism, as if "historical" is just another word for "preterist", proves to me you simply have no clue about prophecy interpretation, its history and development, or the main differences between the main views, or even what main views exist.

So, it is little wonder you don't answer questions about prophecy.

I put a difference between Peterist/historist when I said:

On the other hand the Pret/Historic interpreters having come very strongly against what I have openly and publicly taught HAVE OFFERED NOTHING in the way of explaining the verses.

Indeed up to this point neither you or Dom has set forth an answer to what is meant by the opening of the 5th seal. He is the Preterist. You are the Historist.

I made a video about it years ago. I said what I believe. It is now being examined. Good. I am glad anyone would take the time to watch it. I am now simply agreeing with what I said then. I'm open about it. I'm not trying to hide anything.

When I see you all put an explanation into the thread I will have the same opportunity to examine it.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

I put a difference between Peterist/historist when I said:



Indeed up to this point neither you or Dom has set forth an answer to what is meant by the opening of the 5th seal. He is the Preterist. You are the Historist.

I made a video about it years ago. I said what I believe. It is now being examined. Good. I am glad anyone would take the time to watch it. I am now simply agreeing with what I said then. I'm open about it. I'm not trying to hide anything.

When I see you all put an explanation into the thread I will have the same opportunity to examine it.

We are trying to examine your doctrine but you aren't actually answering the questions, at least not mine: Why should we believe the Revelation concerns ONLY a future end time scenario? Covering a short period of time at the end, still in the future?

I have a thread on the historicist approach, I linked to it here in either this thread or the other, your welcome to examine and ask whatever questions you want.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

But why does it "seem" to you to be teaching a relatively short period? That's the question. "Why is is a short period in the future?" "Well, because it seems like a short period in the future." That doesn't really explain anything.

Originally Posted by Esaias

We are trying to examine your doctrine but you aren't actually answering the questions, at least not mine: Why should we believe the Revelation concerns ONLY a future end time scenario? Covering a short period of time at the end, still in the future?

Mike? Or, any futurists for that matter?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I won't say you are "ashamed" of what you believe. I will however say you don't really know why you believe what you believe, and THAT'S why you won't explain the foundations of your doctrine.