| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Pastor Dave" |
| Date: |
18 Jan 2008 05:06:54 AM |
| Object: |
@ CHUCK'S "LORD"! |
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 00:10:04 -0800, "Chuck Stamford"
<shell__stamford@cox.net> said the following:
"Pastor Dave" wrote in message:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 01:55:04 -0800,
"Chuck Stamford" said the following:
"gatekeeper" wrote in message
Hey Chuck, where do you get off calling
Jesus Lord? That would indicate that
He has a Kingdom...
No, it wouldn't. He doesn't have to have
a kingdom to be my Lord. All that need
be for Him to be my Lord is that I submit
to and obey Him.
There's no such thing as someone being lord
over all, when they have no kingdom!
Non sequitur.
Bull! It was right on target and that's why you
snipped 99% of what I wrote and yet, you slam
others when they snip your words, you hypocrite!
Is He Lord over all, or not, Chucky?
The claim was
I don't trust your version of what the claim was,
since you are a known word twister and liar and
you are well known for snipping out whatever
proves what a Scripture torturer you are!
that my calling Jesus my Lord "indicated" Jesus
had a "Kingdom". It doesn't.
Then He isn't "Lord over all", AS YOU HAVE
PREVIOUSLY CLAIMED!!! And I dealt with
this issue, BUT YOU SNIPPED IT!!!
I have reinserted the text you snipped below.
All it needs indicate is my submission to His will.
This is true whether or not Jesus ALSO has a Kingdom.
Also??? Are you really that foolish?!?
And why would you submit to the will of one who
has no rule?! And He surely has no rule, if He
rules over nothing! You claim He rules over you,
but why would you submit to someone who has
no kingdom?! Would you submit to some guy
on the street, because he thinks you should?
Of course not!
But you submit to the President, because he is
President of the U.S.! But what if he was not?
Would you still submit? Same man, Chucky boy!
So what's the difference, that makes you say that
you won't submit to him? NO KINGDOM, Chuck!
And if Jesus does not rule over all, even now, almost
2,000 years later, then He was just some guy on the
street, Chuck! Hey, almost 2,000 YEARS LATER and
He STILL has NO KINGDOM, Chucky?! Please! That's
not a "Lord"! That's just some guy who went around
saying nice things, but was a liar, since what He said
never happened, even 2,000 years later and the Jews
were right to demand His crucifixion, by Deut 18:20-22!
Deuteronomy 18:20-22
20) But the prophet who presumes to speak a word
in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak,
or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet
shall die.
21) And if you say in your heart, How shall we know
the word which the Lord has not spoken?
22) When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord,
if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is
the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet
has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid
of him.
And now, let's look at what He said...
"Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no
means pass away till all these things take place."
- Matthew 24:34
And that Greek word, translated into "assuredly",
in the original Greek, is very emphatic! It is as if
Jesus staked His whole credibility on this statement!
And Daniel 2:44 says that before the last of the four
kingdoms passed, Christ would rule! And we both
know the following two things:
1) The four kingdoms have passed!
a) Babylonian
b) Medo-Persian
c) Greek
d) Roman
2) Daniel, never, NOT ONCE said anything about either
a "revived Roman Empire", nor a "fifth kingdom"!
And Daniel 7:13-14 says that Christ took His throne
and began to rule when He ascended and it says that
at that time, He ruled even over the nations of Earth!
Note that He does not come FROM the Ancient of Days
(God the Father), but TO the Ancient of Days, on the
clouds! Also note that His rule, even over the nations,
is present tense to THAT TIME!
Daniel 7:13-14
13) I was watching in the night visions,
And behold, One like the Son of Man,
coming with the clouds of heaven!
He came *_TO_* the Ancient of Days,
and they brought Him near before Him.
14) *_THEN_* to Him was given dominion
and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples,
NATIONS, and languages should serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away, and His KINGDOM
the one which shall not be destroyed.
So sorry Chuck, but He rules NOW!
And as for your claim of animal sacrifices and you
raising your hands in some supposed "rebuilt temple",
let's see what Hebrews says about your Dispy doctrine:
Hebrews 10:8-12
8) Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and
burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not,
neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by
the law;
No pleasure in the animal sacrifices by the Law
and yet, you claim that Jesus will be sitting in
this temple and take pleasure in it!
9) Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God.
He taketh away the first, that he may establish the
second.
The first is the Mosaic Law system. Jesus took it
away (Colossians shows us that Christ nailed the
Law to the cross and "took it out of the way")!
10) By the which will we are sanctified through the
offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
SANCTIFIED ONCE, FOR ALL!!! The only thing
that condemns a person now, is disbelief in Jesus
and that is what Jews would be doing, by trying
to get to Heaven through the Law! And yet,
you claim that Jesus will be there, praising this?!
Jesus said that He was the only way to God and yet,
you claim that the Jews have another way to God!
11) And every priest standeth daily ministering and
offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can
never take away sins:
These sacrifices can never take away sins and yet,
you claim that the Jews can do it!
12) But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice
for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God.
Notice, ONE SACRIFICE that took away sins FOREVER!!!
And furthermore, Chuck...
If Jesus has no Kingdom, then He is not King and this
is where you're totally screwed, Chuck, because YOU
HAVE called HIM, "King of kings and Lord of lords"!!!
Do you deny that?! You know better than to do that!
And the fact is, that if He is "King of Kings", then He
*_MUST_* have a Kingdom and you damn well know it!!!
How can you call Him "King" and then say that He isn't
the King?!? And don't try to hand me that, "He's King
over me" crap, because you don't pick someone and
just call then king over you! They must BE A KING,
for you to do THAT, Chuck! I covered that above!
I believe He does [have a kingdom], and so do you.
Now you're just simply trying to weasel out of
your previous statement! There would have been
NO REASON for you to even make such a claim
as you did, if you believed that He has a Kingdom!
You would NOT have said that it isn't necessary,
if that's not what you were saying!
And we both know that you have stated more than
once, that He does NOT rule over all and yet, you
have called Him "Lord over all"!
As I said, Futurism always ends up contradicting itself
and that's why you have to continually snip what I write
and run away when I keep cornering you with this stuff
and try to attack me and lie about what I'm saying,
after snipping what I said, to try to cover your tracks,
thinking that because you snipped my words, it means
that no one saw my message and that no one can go
back one message and read what you wrote and all
of what i replied to you with!
And as I said, if you did believe that He has a Kingdom,
then you wouldn't be saying that it isn't necessary for
a king to have a kingdom! And you may try to play
word games here and just use "lord", but the fact is,
when speaking of Jesus, there is no such thing as just
a basic "lord", like some schmoe! And you have called
Him "King" and that means that you know He has to
already have a Kingdom and you are just trying to
promote your Dispy (Dispensationalist) doctrine,
that says that He's "lord, but not lord over all and
has no kingdom yet", when you have called Him King
and have said that He is Lord over all!
The difference, and it's a biggy, is that I believe
He has not yet come down from Heaven to take
possession of it, and you do.
Take possession of it?! What?! Why would He have
to come to this planet, to rule it?!
You are just not too bright, Chuckles! You admitted
to me, that the Old Testament states very clearly that
God has always ruled the world. You had to, when
I showed you the passages, even though you didn't
want to! And so where did God do that from, Chucky?
Hint: It wasn't Earth!
"Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool:
What house will ye build me? saith the Lord:
Or what is the place of my rest?" - Acts 7:49
Now since you Dispy's are ignorant of the OT
and think it's all new stuff in the NT, let me
enlighten you and show you that he was simply
quoting Isaiah:
"Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne,
and the earth is my footstool: Where is the house
that ye build unto me? And where is the place of
my rest?" - Isaiah 66:1
And now, let's look at it together with the prior verse,
which destroys your Futurist view, in which you think
people (and said you want to be among them) will be
standing in a temple in the future, praising God for
animal sacrifices, while Christ sits in this temple,
happy that the Jews are spitting in His face by performing
these animal sacrifices, which automatically deny His
"once for all" sacrifice! And pay special attention to
the last verse, which is what applies to you especially,
just like it did to them, when Stephen said it, because
they also wanted that Earthly temple for God to dwell
in, but like them, you're too stiffnecked to get the fact
that God has always ruled from Heaven, which proves
that He doesn't need to "come here and claim it",
as you tried to claim He does, Chucky boy!:
Acts 7:48-51
48) Howbeit the most High dwelleth NOT in temples
made with hands; as saith the prophet,
49) Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool:
What house will ye build me? saith the Lord:
Or what is the place of my rest?
50) Hath not My hand made all these things?
51) Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and
ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your
fathers did, so do ye.
So you want God to reside in a temple that is
a physical building, even given what He said!
And since you say that Jesus is God, you don't
get to say, "But Jesus will"!
And as I said previously, to paste back in what
you snipped:
Hey Chuck, where do you get off calling
Jesus Lord? That would indicate that
He has a Kingdom...
No, it wouldn't. He doesn't have to have
a kingdom to be my Lord. All that need
be for Him to be my Lord is that I submit
to and obey Him.
There's no such thing as someone being lord over
all, when they have no kingdom! And the truth is,
that you call Him the Creator and "Lord over all"
and yet, claim that He isn't Lord over all! And that
makes you a hypocrite and a liar when you say
those things!
Futurism always ends up contradicting itself and
the Futurists deny it, because for them, it has to
be all about them, or the Bible is useless! (:
What you have just done, is make Jesus no more
powerful than say, Abraham, who was called "lord"
by those who worked for him and actually, even
less powerful than Abraham, considering that at
least Abraham had some land and you claim Jesus
doesn't yet! So your "lord" is a "no land owning,
can't control anything here, is lord of nothing on
Earth, nice guy from almost 2,000 years ago".
Gee, I'm sure He appreciates the vote of confidence!
But why would you want to follow someone like that,
who is not even as powerful as Abraham was?!
But thank you for admitting that your "Savior",
according to you, is not Lord and that you claim
that He is only Lord over a certain amount of
people, but not over the creation that they live in!
According to you, He is "Savior", but not really "Lord",
since He has no kingdom!
No thanks! I'm not interested in your brand of "lord"!
My Lord and Savior rules all and has done so, since
He ascended, as Daniel 7:13-14 prophesied and as
Hebrews says happened and Daniel 2:44 said it would
happen before the four kingdoms ended and the four
kingdoms did end! So you worship your "less powerful
than Abraham guy" and I'll worship the Lord Jesus
Christ who rules now and has a Kingdom!
--
"...as far as they agree with the Scriptures; but we
modestly dissent from them when they are found to set
down things differing from, or altogether contrary to,
the Scriptures.... And in the same order also we place
the decrees and canons of councils. Wherefore we do
not permit ourselves, in controversies about religion
or matters of faith, to urge our case with only the
opinions of the fathers or decrees of councils; much
less by received opinions, or by the large number of
those who share the same opinion, or by the prescription
of a long time." - Second Helvetic Confession
.
|
|
| User: "Randy ®" |
|
| Title: Re: @ CHUCK'S "LORD"! |
18 Jan 2008 09:15:15 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 06:06:54 -0500,
in article <l9t0p356q5phpccp84i8kabe1b2lldov40@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 00:10:04 -0800, "Chuck Stamford"
<shell__stamford@cox.net> said the following:
"Pastor Dave" wrote in message:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 01:55:04 -0800,
"Chuck Stamford" said the following:
"gatekeeper" wrote in message
Hey Chuck, where do you get off calling
Jesus Lord? That would indicate that
He has a Kingdom...
No, it wouldn't. He doesn't have to have
a kingdom to be my Lord. All that need
be for Him to be my Lord is that I submit
to and obey Him.
There's no such thing as someone being lord
over all, when they have no kingdom!
Non sequitur.
Bull! It was right on target and that's why you
snipped 99% of what I wrote and yet, you slam
others when they snip your words, you hypocrite!
--Standard claim you make when you want to distract people
from your loosing arguments.
Is He Lord over all, or not, Chucky?
--False premise. You're trying to obscure the difference
between positional reality and historical fulfillment (see
below).
The claim was
I don't trust your version of what the claim was,
since you are a known word twister and liar and
you are well known for snipping out whatever
proves what a Scripture torturer you are!
Still looking for a vicarious atonement other than Christ?
that my calling Jesus my Lord "indicated" Jesus
had a "Kingdom". It doesn't.
Then He isn't "Lord over all", AS YOU HAVE
PREVIOUSLY CLAIMED!!! And I dealt with
this issue, BUT YOU SNIPPED IT!!!
I have reinserted the text you snipped below.
All it needs indicate is my submission to His will.
This is true whether or not Jesus ALSO has a Kingdom.
Also??? Are you really that foolish?!?
And why would you submit to the will of one who
has no rule?! And He surely has no rule, if He
rules over nothing! You claim He rules over you,
but why would you submit to someone who has
no kingdom?! Would you submit to some guy
on the street, because he thinks you should?
Of course not!
But you submit to the President, because he is
President of the U.S.! But what if he was not?
Would you still submit? Same man, Chucky boy!
So what's the difference, that makes you say that
you won't submit to him? NO KINGDOM, Chuck!
And if Jesus does not rule over all, even now, almost
2,000 years later, then He was just some guy on the
street, Chuck! Hey, almost 2,000 YEARS LATER and
He STILL has NO KINGDOM, Chucky?! Please! That's
not a "Lord"! That's just some guy who went around
saying nice things, but was a liar, since what He said
never happened, even 2,000 years later and the Jews
were right to demand His crucifixion, by Deut 18:20-22!
Christ was the lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the
world:
Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall
worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life
of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
That was His position before the world was even created. But
it still required Him to come to earth, and die on a cross,
for the prophecy to be realized. Does that mean that until He
actually came to this earth and died on a cross, He was not
the lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world? No,
it does not. While the position was a reality, the complete
fulfillment of the position had to be realized at a point in
time.
In the same way, as God, Christ has always been, and will
always be Master of the universe. That is a positional
reality, which is not affected by time. Yet since His plan
included involving Himself in a literal, historical system,
there remains a sense in which His plan must unfold, and He
must yet reign as Lord, over this earth, as described in
Revelation 19-20.
Your lying proposal suggests that all this sin and death we
see, 2,000 years after you claim the prophecy was fully
realized, actually represents God's will being done on earth,
as it is in heaven!
Deuteronomy 18:20-22
20) But the prophet who presumes to speak a word
in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak,
or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet
shall die.
21) And if you say in your heart, How shall we know
the word which the Lord has not spoken?
22) When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord,
if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is
the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet
has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid
of him.
Take it to heart, because you are a false prophet, who claims
the lost won't really spend eternity in hell, but who tries to
make this earth, here and now, the fulfillment of the eternal
state described in Revelation 21-22. You're the vain liar who
has it all being about your life, here and now, as if it just
couldn't get any better than it is on this earth. Then you
consistently try to make futurists your vicarious atonement
for that vanity!
And now, let's look at what He said...
"Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no
means pass away till all these things take place."
- Matthew 24:34
And that Greek word, translated into "assuredly",
in the original Greek, is very emphatic! It is as if
Jesus staked His whole credibility on this statement!
Feigning confidence in a lie won't help you. Despite your
arrogant boasting and attempts to cling to your strained
interpretation of that passage, it does not mean that all
prophecy was fulfilled during the lifetime of those who then
stood there and heard Christ speak. Such an interpretation
requires the phrase "this generation" to mean _only_ what you
want it to, when the context clearly indicates otherwise:
Regarding the use of the phrase "this generation" (Mt. 24:34),
as a supposed irrefutable proof text that all the prophecies
must have been fulfilled within the lifetime of the group of
contemporary people then listening to Christ speak:
1) Strong says it means, by implication, an "age", whether the
people or the period. You cannot, therefore, claim the word
can only possibly mean the group of contemporary people then
standing and listening to Christ. Both the translation "this
age", and "this people" is allowed, *and* doesn't require you
to throw the rest of Bible prophecy to the winds of spiritual
oblivion at your own discretion.
a) This age will not pass away until all the signs be
fulfilled. This interpretation is allowed, and alone suffices
as a legitimate understanding that presents no problem at all
to the futurist position. An age that lasts until eternity is
ushered in, *is* implied:
1. by the disciples' question that precipitated the discourse:
Mt 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples
came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these
things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of
the end of the world <165>?
2. by the meaning of the word "aiwn":
165 aiwn aion ahee-ohn'
from the same as 104; TDNT-1:197,31; n m
AV-[***]ever 71[***], world 38, never + 3364 + 1519 + 3588 6,
[***]evermore 4[***], [***]age 2[***], [***]eternal 2[***],
misc 5; 128
3. as well as by the fulfillment of the prophecies of
Revelation, which take us to the new heavens and earth in
which you are *NOT* now walking. Further, *this*
interpretation doesn't require throwing the rest of Bible
prophecy to the winds of spiritual oblivion at your own
discretion.
b) This people (Jews, believers, those who see the signs),
will not pass away until all the signs are fulfilled. The
word "genea" is the root of "generation", refers to that which
is generated, and is applicable to the Jewish people, or
believers. There is no problem in understanding these people
would not pass away until all those things be fulfilled.
2) The nearest contextual use of the phrase "this generation"
(23:36) identifies the group of people who killed all the
righteous from Abel to Zecharias. This occurred over
thousands of years, and is in no way limited to only the
people who then stood and listened to Christ speak. Neither
is the phrase "this generation" in Matthew 24 restricted to
only those who stood and listened, but extends thousands
of years into the future:
Matthew 23
35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon
the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of
Zecharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple
and the altar.
36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon
this generation.
So when He said that upon "you" may come all the righteous
blood shed upon the earth, He was supposedly referring *only*
to the group of people then standing there and listening? But
then, in the *very same* sentence, when He says whom "ye" slew
(Zecharias), this supposedly doesn't include people from
thousands of years in the past?
No, while "this generation" *can* refer to the group of
contemporary people then listening to Christ, it *cannot*
*only* mean that. The same "ye" that slew Zecharias is "this
generation", and that includes people from thousands of years
in the past.
Preterists are almost always forced to either spiritualize a
passage until it means almost a perfect contradiction to what
it plainly says (e.g. 2 Peter 3, Romans 11, Revelation 21-22),
or else impose one, exclusive, literal meaning on some word or
phrase, as if that is the only possible interpretation.
And Daniel 2:44 says that before the last of the four
kingdoms passed, Christ would rule! And we both
know the following two things:
1) The four kingdoms have passed!
a) Babylonian
b) Medo-Persian
c) Greek
d) Roman
1) Revelation describes the beast (Roman empire) having a
deadly wound that was healed, before Christ destroys it:
Revelation 13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded
to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world
wondered after the beast.
Revelation 13:12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first
beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell
therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was
healed.
2) Further, Rome is said to be divided among ten kingdoms
(feet and toes mixed with iron and clay), at the time Christ's
kingdom smashes it. Rome wasn't even divided into two legs
(Rome and Constantinople) in A.D. 70, let alone ten toes!
Europe will be the ten kingdom confederation of the Revived
Roman Empire--i.e. the beast with the deadly wound that was
healed.
2) Daniel, never, NOT ONCE said anything about either
a "revived Roman Empire", nor a "fifth kingdom"!
ibid. Rome isn't just the loin! Rome was the loin in A.D.
70, not the two legs (Rome and Constantinople), or the feet of
iron and clay. Christ's kingdom smashes Rome in the feet of
iron and clay, not the groin!
Further, Revelation 13:12 & 22 clearly indicates the beast
will be revived from a deadly wound, and the whole world will
marvel. Europe will be the ten kingdom confederation (Roman
toes of iron and clay), that will be revived from a deadly
wound.
And Daniel 7:13-14 says that Christ took His throne
and began to rule when He ascended and it says that
at that time, He ruled even over the nations of Earth!
1) So, according to your proposal, Christ was not Lord until
He ascended! When we claim He has yet to fulfill His reign on
this earth, in the sense Revelation 19-20 describes, you feign
indignation, on the grounds He's always been Lord, as if to
state there has ever been a time when He didn't reign over the
kingdoms of this earth means we fail to acknowledge Him as
Lord. Yet your own scheme requires that although He has
always been Lord, there was time that passed before that reign
was fully realized on earth!
2) The passage you quote from Daniel does _not_ say Christ
immediately began reigning over all the kingdoms of the earth,
the moment He approached the Ancient of Days! It says He
Approached the Ancient of Days, "And" _THERE_ was given Him
dominion, etc., not "And _THEN_".
A) Hebrews indicates that after the ascension, Christ sits at
the right hand of God (Ancient of Days), "until" His enemies
be made His footstool!
Hebrews 1:13 But to which of the angels said he at any time,
Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy
footstool?
Hebrews 10
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins
for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his
footstool.
That means that, although positionally all things were put
under His feet (Eph. 1:22), Christ waits for the fulfillment
of that position to include His enemies! There are still
enemies of the cross, and Christ, therefore, there is still a
sense in which He is still waiting till they be made His
footstool!
B) Spiritually, right now, Christ is head over the church,
which includes people from all nations, kingdoms, and peoples:
Ephesians 1
20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the
dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly
places,
21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and
dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this
world, but also in that which is to come:
22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be
the head over all things to the church,
23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in
all.
3) Your lying scheme has Christ's reign, and God's will being
done on earth as it is in heaven, including all the sin,
death, and abominations in which we are now surrounded.
Revelation 21-22 says these things will not occur during the
aspect of Christ's reign it describes!
Note that He does not come FROM the Ancient of Days
(God the Father), but TO the Ancient of Days, on the
clouds! Also note that His rule, even over the nations,
is present tense to THAT TIME!
Daniel 7:13-14
13) I was watching in the night visions,
And behold, One like the Son of Man,
coming with the clouds of heaven!
He came *_TO_* the Ancient of Days,
and they brought Him near before Him.
14) *_THEN_* to Him was given dominion
and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples,
NATIONS, and languages should serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away, and His KINGDOM
the one which shall not be destroyed.
13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son
of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient
of days, and they brought him near before him.
14 And *_THERE_* was given him dominion, and glory, and a
kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve
him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not
pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
It does not say "And _THEN_". It says "And there". See
explanation above. In position, Christ sits at the right hand
of God, with all things under His feet. Yet Hebrews says He
still expects till His enemies be made His footstool. You're
trying to confuse His positional reality with it's unfolding
in History, as if a position cannot be had unless it is fully
realized at that time. And yet that then gives you the
problem that God's will either includes sin, death, and
abominations on this earth, or that His will is not yet being
done on earth as it is in heaven, like we see in Revelation
19-20!
So sorry Chuck, but He rules NOW!
ibid.
And as for your claim of animal sacrifices and you
raising your hands in some supposed "rebuilt temple",
let's see what Hebrews says about your Dispy doctrine:
Hebrews 10:8-12
8) Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and
burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not,
neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by
the law;
No pleasure in the animal sacrifices by the Law
and yet, you claim that Jesus will be sitting in
this temple and take pleasure in it!
9) Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God.
He taketh away the first, that he may establish the
second.
The first is the Mosaic Law system. Jesus took it
away (Colossians shows us that Christ nailed the
Law to the cross and "took it out of the way")!
10) By the which will we are sanctified through the
offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
SANCTIFIED ONCE, FOR ALL!!! The only thing
that condemns a person now, is disbelief in Jesus
and that is what Jews would be doing, by trying
to get to Heaven through the Law! And yet,
you claim that Jesus will be there, praising this?!
Jesus said that He was the only way to God and yet,
you claim that the Jews have another way to God!
11) And every priest standeth daily ministering and
offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can
never take away sins:
These sacrifices can never take away sins and yet,
you claim that the Jews can do it!
12) But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice
for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God.
....
Hebrews 10:13 From henceforth expecting *_TILL_* his enemies
be made his footstool (emphasis mine).
Notice, ONE SACRIFICE that took away sins FOREVER!!!
Chuck does not dispute that Christ's sacrifice was the once
for all payment for our sins. If he views that we will offer
sacrifices in the temple, I'm sure he believes it will be in
memorial to what Christ has done for us, not as a necessary
recurring payment for his sins.
And beside that, Chuck is not the one arguing that there will
still be sin and death in Christ's kingdom, that will require
atoning for. You're the one who has the supposed fulfillment
of Revelation 21-22, including all the sin, death, and
abomination by which we are now surrounded, as if this were
God's will being done on earth as it is in heaven.
And by the way, God has always been God, right? So why did
Christ _ever_ pray that the Father's will would be done on
earth as it is in heaven? Huh? Because although God is God,
positionally, and rules everything, He has chosen to attach
Himself to a plan that involves the unfolding of His will on
this earth, which means there will be a time when His will is
not being done on this earth, as it is in heaven.
And furthermore, Chuck...
If Jesus has no Kingdom, then He is not King and this
is where you're totally screwed, Chuck, because YOU
HAVE called HIM, "King of kings and Lord of lords"!!!
Do you deny that?! You know better than to do that!
And the fact is, that if He is "King of Kings", then He
*_MUST_* have a Kingdom and you damn well know it!!!
How can you call Him "King" and then say that He isn't
the King?!? And don't try to hand me that, "He's King
over me" crap, because you don't pick someone and
just call then king over you! They must BE A KING,
for you to do THAT, Chuck! I covered that above!
I believe He does [have a kingdom], and so do you.
Now you're just simply trying to weasel out of
your previous statement! There would have been
NO REASON for you to even make such a claim
as you did, if you believed that He has a Kingdom!
You would NOT have said that it isn't necessary,
if that's not what you were saying!
And we both know that you have stated more than
once, that He does NOT rule over all and yet, you
have called Him "Lord over all"!
As I said, Futurism always ends up contradicting itself
and that's why you have to continually snip what I write
and run away when I keep cornering you with this stuff
and try to attack me and lie about what I'm saying,
after snipping what I said, to try to cover your tracks,
thinking that because you snipped my words, it means
that no one saw my message and that no one can go
back one message and read what you wrote and all
of what i replied to you with!
And as I said, if you did believe that He has a Kingdom,
then you wouldn't be saying that it isn't necessary for
a king to have a kingdom! And you may try to play
word games here and just use "lord", but the fact is,
when speaking of Jesus, there is no such thing as just
a basic "lord", like some schmoe! And you have called
Him "King" and that means that you know He has to
already have a Kingdom and you are just trying to
promote your Dispy (Dispensationalist) doctrine,
that says that He's "lord, but not lord over all and
has no kingdom yet", when you have called Him King
and have said that He is Lord over all!
The difference, and it's a biggy, is that I believe
He has not yet come down from Heaven to take
possession of it, and you do.
Take possession of it?! What?! Why would He have
to come to this planet, to rule it?!
You are just not too bright, Chuckles! You admitted
to me, that the Old Testament states very clearly that
God has always ruled the world. You had to, when
I showed you the passages, even though you didn't
want to! And so where did God do that from, Chucky?
Hint: It wasn't Earth!
"Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool:
What house will ye build me? saith the Lord:
Or what is the place of my rest?" - Acts 7:49
Now since you Dispy's are ignorant of the OT
and think it's all new stuff in the NT, let me
enlighten you and show you that he was simply
quoting Isaiah:
"Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne,
and the earth is my footstool: Where is the house
that ye build unto me? And where is the place of
my rest?" - Isaiah 66:1
And now, let's look at it together with the prior verse,
which destroys your Futurist view, in which you think
people (and said you want to be among them) will be
standing in a temple in the future, praising God for
animal sacrifices, while Christ sits in this temple,
happy that the Jews are spitting in His face by performing
these animal sacrifices, which automatically deny His
"once for all" sacrifice! And pay special attention to
the last verse, which is what applies to you especially,
just like it did to them, when Stephen said it, because
they also wanted that Earthly temple for God to dwell
in, but like them, you're too stiffnecked to get the fact
that God has always ruled from Heaven, which proves
that He doesn't need to "come here and claim it",
as you tried to claim He does, Chucky boy!:
Acts 7:48-51
48) Howbeit the most High dwelleth NOT in temples
made with hands; as saith the prophet,
49) Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool:
What house will ye build me? saith the Lord:
Or what is the place of my rest?
50) Hath not My hand made all these things?
51) Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and
ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your
fathers did, so do ye.
So you want God to reside in a temple that is
a physical building, even given what He said!
And since you say that Jesus is God, you don't
get to say, "But Jesus will"!
And as I said previously, to paste back in what
you snipped:
Hey Chuck, where do you get off calling
Jesus Lord? That would indicate that
He has a Kingdom...
No, it wouldn't. He doesn't have to have
a kingdom to be my Lord. All that need
be for Him to be my Lord is that I submit
to and obey Him.
There's no such thing as someone being lord over
all, when they have no kingdom! And the truth is,
that you call Him the Creator and "Lord over all"
and yet, claim that He isn't Lord over all! And that
makes you a hypocrite and a liar when you say
those things!
Futurism always ends up contradicting itself and
the Futurists deny it, because for them, it has to
be all about them, or the Bible is useless! (:
What you have just done, is make Jesus no more
powerful than say, Abraham, who was called "lord"
by those who worked for him and actually, even
less powerful than Abraham, considering that at
least Abraham had some land and you claim Jesus
doesn't yet! So your "lord" is a "no land owning,
can't control anything here, is lord of nothing on
Earth, nice guy from almost 2,000 years ago".
Gee, I'm sure He appreciates the vote of confidence!
But why would you want to follow someone like that,
who is not even as powerful as Abraham was?!
But thank you for admitting that your "Savior",
according to you, is not Lord and that you claim
that He is only Lord over a certain amount of
people, but not over the creation that they live in!
According to you, He is "Savior", but not really "Lord",
since He has no kingdom!
No thanks! I'm not interested in your brand of "lord"!
My Lord and Savior rules all and has done so, since
He ascended, as Daniel 7:13-14 prophesied and as
Hebrews says happened and Daniel 2:44 said it would
happen before the four kingdoms ended and the four
kingdoms did end! So you worship your "less powerful
than Abraham guy" and I'll worship the Lord Jesus
Christ who rules now and has a Kingdom!
Futurists do not deny, reject, or try to minimize the
spiritual aspects of Christ's kingdom and reign. Preterists
are the ones who are denying, rejecting, and trying to
obfuscate the literal aspects of His reign, as they apply to
this physical earth, and thereby make a mockery of God's
kingdom and promises.
Your lying scheme has God's will being done on earth as it is
in heaven including sin, death, and abomination, and virtually
eliminates hell as well. Thus, you have it all being about
your life, here and now, on this earth, as it is in this
current, carnal condition! Then you can't stop yourself from
trying to make a vicarious atonement for preterism, out of
futurists!
©2007 pulpitfire.net, pulpitfire.org, pulpitfire.com
--
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself
up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every
thought to make it obedient to Christ. †2 Corinthians 10:5
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy ®" |
|
| Title: Re: @ CHUCK'S "LORD"! |
18 Jan 2008 09:44:53 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 06:06:54 -0500,
in article <l9t0p356q5phpccp84i8kabe1b2lldov40@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
that my calling Jesus my Lord "indicated" Jesus
had a "Kingdom". It doesn't.
Then He isn't "Lord over all", AS YOU HAVE
PREVIOUSLY CLAIMED!!! And I dealt with
this issue, BUT YOU SNIPPED IT!!!
I have reinserted the text you snipped below.
All it needs indicate is my submission to His will.
This is true whether or not Jesus ALSO has a Kingdom.
Also??? Are you really that foolish?!?
And why would you submit to the will of one who
has no rule?!
You're the liar who snipped his words, and is misrepresenting
him. He didn't say Christ has no rule. Here's what he
actually said:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 00:10:04 -0800,
in article <z9Zjj.60563$Rf5.12182@newsfe13.phx>,
"Chuck Stamford" <shell__stamford@cox.net> wrote:
**************************************************************
Non sequitur. The claim was that my calling Jesus my Lord "indicated" Jesus
had a "Kingdom". It doesn't. All it needs indicate is my submission to His
will. This is true whether or not Jesus ALSO has a Kingdom. I believe He
does, and so do you. The difference, and it's a biggy, is that I believe He
has not yet come down from Heaven to take possession of it, and you do.
**************************************************************
©2007 pulpitfire.net, pulpitfire.org, pulpitfire.com
--
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself
up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every
thought to make it obedient to Christ. †2 Corinthians 10:5
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
