On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:52:03 +0200, " ::: vera :::"
<veralein@lycos.com> claimed:


I do not expect a real response to this message.
Rather, I expect only an attack.

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:52:03 +0200, " ::: vera :::"
<veral...@lycos.com> claimed:

I do not expect a real response to this message.
Rather, I expect only an attack. But I will lay
this out anyway. And I'm sure that Dispy's will
take this message as an attack on them and that
is their choice. But everything I said in it is true
and not one thing can be honestly disputed by
those who believe in the Dispensationalist scenario.

So I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but facts are facts
and this is a response to those who call me a heretic,
for not believing in their view.

Now I know that many, when confronted with the fact
that both Jesus and the Apostles taught His return
within that same generation, which I have proved many
times, to many people, will try to pretend that it is no
big deal and that it is not that important anyway. But
the truth is, that this claim always comes after they have
vilified me for not believing as they do about it and also,
only comes after seeing this proof.

They also claim that this is not a "make or break issue"
as to whether or not someone is saved. Yet, again,
this statement only comes after seeing the proof I mentioned
and after they have already claimed that I am a heretic
for preaching that Jesus would return within the same
generation. If it isn't a "make or break issue", then
why am I being vilified and called a heretic?!?

So what ends up happening (and has repeatedly happened),
is that they will also claim that the Apostles were wrong for
teaching the same thing. That they were wrong about this
and that is when the claims follow that it isn't an important
issue. So why did they make such a big deal out of it,
before seeing the proof that yes, both Jesus and the Apostles
preached a return of Christ within that same generation?
This is highly disingenuous! (:

Therefore, one can reach no other conclusion, than to
acknowledge that they believe that the Apostles were
heretics, pain and simple! If I am a heretic and what
I believe, is what the Apostles taught, then the Apostles
are heretics. It's that simple. It is not my belief that
they were heretics, of course. But it is theirs!

And therefore, following the claims of these people through,
we must now question all of their teachings! After all, how
can we claim that the NT is the inspired word of God, when
we also claim that not only were the Apostles wrong, but so
was the Lord Jesus Christ?! Huh?!? (:

The truth is, that if they were wrong about such an important
issue, then we cannot trust anything they said! Or should we
just call up a Dispensationalist every time we need a judgment
call on which Scriptures we can trust and which we can't?
And how do we come to believe that we are now the judge
of which Scriptures to believe are correct?!? This is the
height of vanity!!!

And it is disingenuous for a Dispensationalist to say that we
can trust them all, because this is contradicted by the claim
that the Apostles were wrong about when Christ would return!

Now anyone who wants to, can get as mad as they want to
for my saying what I'm saying here. But in reality, I am not
the one saying it. I am repeating what the Dispensationalists
have said (which is quoted further down).

So they say that sure, the Apostles believed that Christ would
return within that generation, but we are in a better position
now, to see that they were obviously mistaken about that,
because (according to them) it is obvious that not all of
the prophecies have been fulfilled yet.

You see folks, it never occurs to them that maybe THEIR
understanding of HOW the prophecies were to be fulfilled
could be what is wrong and that Christ DID keep His word!

This is just NOT a thought in their minds, because they
cannot envision themselves ever being wrong!

This seems to me, to be the height of vanity!!! To look at
the Scriptures and claim that the Apostles were wrong and
that they can't be wrong about their interpretation of how
the prophecies were to be fulfilled!

But look at what Isaiah 19:1 says about God riding a cloud,
in this FULFILLED prophecy, about the time that God used
the Assyrians to judge Egypt. There is God, riding a cloud,
judging Egypt and yet, no one PHYSICALLY saw Him! But
can the Dispy's admit to this, when it is proved to them that
it is symbolic language that is being used and that since
Scripture interprets Scripture and not our doctrines, that
we should view what Jesus said as symbolic representations
of the coming events and not treat His words as physically
literal? No! That one is symbolism, but when Jesus said it,
He meant it as physically literal, they claim! This is what
I'm talking about! It just never occurs to them, that they
could be wrong! So in order to protect their doctrine,
they'd rather believe that Jesus is God and yet, spoke
in the opposite manner that God spoke to His people,
throughout Scripture!

Looking at Isaiah 34:6-11, we also see the identical
language used there, as we see in Mat 24/Luke 21/Rev,
regarding His return and Isaiah 34 is a fulfilled prophecy!
Yet it has the Sun going dark, a woman in travail, a day
of clouds, etc., etc.! So what is the difference in language?
Why none at all! But again, when forced to confront this
Scriptural fact, the Dispy's claim that it is symbolic in
Isaiah, but physically literal when Jesus said it!

And frankly, I see no difference between them and the
evolutionists. Both have the outlook that the people
who lived back then, were just ignorant and had no
clue as to what's really what! "We're smart and they
weren't so smart. And we can now look back and
see that they were wrong.".

The reality is, that both end up contradicting the word
of God!

This is where Dispensationalism/Futurism leaves you!
In constant contradictions against the Bible and constant
hypocrisy, with vanity and ego placing you above the
writers of the NT, while claiming to submit to the authority
of God's word! How does claiming that they were wrong
add up to submitting to the authority of God's word?!

The Apostles believed what they did, because Jesus said it!
They stood there and heard Him speak and where the claim
of the Dispy's falls apart, is when they try to claim that the
Apostles didn't always get it right.

But the truth is, that the Apostles taught that Jesus was
going to return within that same generation, AFTER they
had received the Holy Ghost and went out to evangelize!

And so, this is just Dispensationalists, looking for any
excuse they can find to avoid believing what they KNOW
Scripture says, to hang on to their doctrine, at all costs,
even at the expense of God's word!

This is not some "minor issue"! This is an all important
issue, since aside from initial salvation, this is the most
dealt with issue in the New Testament!

Either the Scriptures are true, or they are not!

Either the Apostles taught correct eschatology,
or they did not!

You can't have it both ways! You either believe the Bible,
or you believe your doctrine over the Bible! Your choice!

Now while you may try to quote passages that say
that the resurrection has not yet passed, they are
not relevant. Why? Very simple. The only thing
that can be said about a passage like that, is that
AT THE TIME IT WAS WRITTEN, the resurrection
had not yet passed. That does not mean that we
can open our Bibles and claim that it has still not
passed. Using that logic, if Jesus were to return
tomorrow, then we could hold up our Bibles and
tell Him that He can't really be here yet, because
look, our Bibles say that it hasn't happened yet! :)

The Biblical texts are like any other, in the sense that
while there are certainly timeless statements within
them, not all statements are timeless. For example,
was Lazarus raised today, because we read it today?
He must have been raised today, because that is
the very approach that the Dispensationalists use
when reading passages that they claim prove that
Christ has not returned yet.

In the same way, reading a text that says that the Lord
had not come yet, does not mean that He has not come
yet, if we read it in 2007. It means that He had not
come yet, WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN and that at the
time it was written, it would have been incorrect to
teach that He had already come. That does not mean
that after He returned, that it would still be incorrect
to teach that He has returned.

And if we take the outlook of the Dispy's on this issue,
then He can never come, because hey, we could open
our Bibles in any year and read the same thing! So
obviously, the statements about His return, are not
timeless statements! He had to come at some point,
which means that when He did come, that yes indeed,
at that point, the return of the Lord had passed and
at that point, that statement is no longer valid for
people, since it speaks of Him as not having returned
yet and after He returned, obviously, He had returned. :)

Therefore, anyone who says that the Lord had returned,
after He returned, is obviously not a heretic at that
point and it is a serious misuse of Scripture, to take
a passage like that and try to use it to browbeat them,
claiming that they are a heretic, because they said that
Christ has returned!

The Dispy's have their idea of what the return of Christ
meant and one of the passages that they love to quote,
deals with Paul telling people not to be troubled, as if
the day of Christ had come (2 Thes 2). And so, Vera
and the rest claim that I am wrong, because hey look,
the Bible says that it didn't happen yet, they say!

But is this a proper response? After all, Paul wrote this
in the 1st century, not the 21st!

And here is the problem, if Christ was to return the way
that they claim it will happen...

They have this idea of that passage speaking of either
a rapture, or the end of the world, depending on who
you talk to. But how could that be, considering that
they were writing to Paul because they were told that
it had happened already.

So let's look at ...

read more =BB